Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascade Policy Institute

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Policy Institute

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cascade Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization has no independent, verifiable, significant secondary source coverage. From the inception of this article's creation to several years after, there was only a single source used which was the organization's own website. Combined with the recurring removal of criticism for the wrong reasons (acceptable removal reason would be poor sourcing, the reason used was that it wasn't a neutral POV or opinions that wasn't valid criticism) and the editing of this article by people actively working in this organization or very closely affiliated (without disclosure) makes this come across at WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and generally failing all notability guidelines. PDXBart (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Cannot locate any WP:RS-compliant significant coverage of the organization. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Splash: The above comment was placed here by an IP editor using your signature. Can you clarify whether the comment is actually yours? Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick search does turn up some SIGCOV. E.g. this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article does not have the best coverage out there, but I think it has passed the bar and article now sufficiently improved per WP:HEY, so happy to support keeping the article. Delete - There are a few hits here and there but the coverage does not appear sufficiently in-depth to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A few hits here and there"? Are we looking at the same thing? I found hundreds of hits in Google Books. StAnselm (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient depth of coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the RS that Cbl62 found, I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a bit surprised at these "fails "GNG" !votes. (Let alone the "never heard of it" argument!) On the contrary, it does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [1][2][3] I'm sure I could find many more as I trawl through the numerous Google Books hits. The other concerns in the nomination really have to do with cleanup and page protection. StAnselm (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely this does not "fail" to meet WP:GNG. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though in many cases the sources are older, including dating to c. 2008–2009 etc. This LONG time article (first created in 00:12, May 31, 2005) absolutely does not merit deletion. Always attempt a thorough clean up before deleting such a long standing article with numerous sources, including those meeting RS criteria, as well as those that might be somewhat less suitable. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many others - the sources are subpar at best. They're mostly hyper local, run of the mill, press releases or otherwise not the in depth coverage we require to establish notability for any subject. Further, the keep votes are not compelling. The length of time an article has existed is irrelevant, we've had 15+ year articles deleted for being hoaxes, non-notable and a variety of reasons. Being longstanding isn't a qualification of notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't call Springer Science+Business Media "hyperlocal". StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given a series of in-depth articles in The Oregonian, including the 1997 profile of the think tank "Cascade Policy Institute works to shine spotlight on free-market solutions" (50% direct/indirect quotes attributed to president, but 50% factual reporting by journalist Nena Baker), a 2006 article "Think tank slips out of Portland to 'safer' Washington County", and the aforementioned "Cascade Policy Institute benefits from secretive donor group but says it operates independently" from 2013 by Jeff Mapes; plus this 2001 Statesman Journal newspaper article about a public protest against a privatization conference hosted by CPI. Outside of Oregon, the think tank is also discussed by publications such as The American Prospect ("Clash in the States") and the Nielsen book mentioned above on Smart Growth Entrepreneurs published by Palgrave Macmillan. As for the actual article itself, it is indeed in dire need of an update, which I am happy to undertake. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main arguments against keeping the page seem to be that the group is a group that focuses on mostly local issues and that the RSes are in question. To address the first point, this is not the first page that I have seen that includes a group that only addresses local issues so this should not be an issue. The more important argument are the disputes of the RSes. There seems to be a lot of articles listed from The Oregonian which, as far as I know, is an RS. In addition, the other RSes do not seem to be too problematic. Quite frankly, I do not see any valid reason to delete this page since the purpose of Wikipedia is to preserve and spread knowledge of topics that people will be interested in learning about. Given the extensive mainstream coverage in Oregon, this is certainly a group that people will have interest in learning about and eliminating the page seems like an unnecessary destruction of knowledge. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cielquiparle,
I relisted this discussion like I always do. This AFD is showing up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18 which is, I believe, the pages that AFD closers look at. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've now completely rewritten the article, incorporating secondary sources (which it lacked when it was originally nominated) while keeping it factual. I've tried to keep the discussion of the think thank's policy stances focused on a few major issues, drawing on academic journal articles and books analyzing the actual impact that Cascade has had on the eventual outcomes. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been substantially improved. Sources presented are adequate under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cascade_Policy_Institute&oldid=1106314391"