Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Urban Design

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Urban Design

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All but one of the sources offered are citations to the organization's own publication, Urban Design International, and are thus WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability. The remaining source is in Architect Magazine but the article is about an exhibit at a US exhibition for which the magazine's contributing editor and editor-in-chief will serve as commissioner and curator, respectively, meaning this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT and thus also unhelpful in establishing notability. Googling turned up nothing useful on the web, in books or on scholar and only a trivial mention that one of their fellows has been hired by the city of Pacific Grove, CA. Additionally, though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article appears to have been contributed by a small number of WP:SPAs. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a 501c3 charitable nonprofit, of financial size (revenues) in 2012 of $367,000 per financial report filed at Guidestar (free account required). It organizes a big conference every two years, has done so at least 13 times, it is influential. On its board of directors, Michael Sorkin's name jumps out at me. Enrique Norten (whose article doesn't mention it) is another director. It's a long-term player in urban design debates, development; Wikipedia readers can be looking for it. Searching in a non-free newspaper database yields numerous hits of its involvement, including:
- 1336 word article about the 2012 show: "Projects Without Architects Steal the Show": [The Arts/Cultural Desk] Kimmelman, Michael. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 12 Sep 2012: C.1.
- 1103 word article about the 1986 show and issues it raises: "Linkage: Civic Aid or `Extortion'? Parley Discusses Merits of Fees on Downtowm Projects": [Home Edition] Fulton, William. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 02 Feb 1986: 21.
- 1067 word article about IFUD- and Columbia journalism school co-sponsored conference: "CRITICS DISCUSS TRANSPORTATION'S DRIVING ROLE IN OUR CITY'S DESTINIES: [ONE STAR Edition] Pittsburgh Post - Gazette [Pittsburgh, Pa] 23 May 2001: C-8.
- Forums it sponsored on World Trade Center replacement designs covered, in "Everyone Weighs In With Rebuilding Ideas" Wyatt, Edward New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 12 Jan 2002: B.3.
- "St. Paul mayor, others to give urban design tips in Big Apple": [METRO Edition] Mack, Linda; Staff Writer. Star Tribune [Minneapolis, Minn] 27 Apr 1999: 02B.

I would like to see more explicit discussion/coverage about the organization itself added to the article, different than coverage found by me about each of the conferences and quotes from the director of the organization and so on, but I rather expect such coverage exists. Just not found easily by me within newspapers. Probably there are books and journal articles with significant discussion of it, i expect. It's a permanent major player, not a fly-by-night one-time operation. Keeping is obviously best, IMHO. --do ncr am

Your first source is a one-sentence trivial mention of the subject near the end of the article. You second source is also a one-sentence trivial mention. Your third source simply cannot be found on the Pittsbugh Post website. Your fourth source is a two-sentence trivial mention. Your fifth source is restricted (I've asked for but haven't yet got a Highbeam account) but appears to be yet another trivial mention. Lots of trivial mentions do not add up to evidence of notability. Under the guidelines, we require multiple reliable independent sources discussing the subject in detail. That's not what we have here. Msnicki (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the first item is trivial mention. The NYTimes article is about the show, which was organized by IFUD. Yes IFUD is mentioned only towards end of article. You would not have major NYTimes coverage of the show, if IFUD had not organized it. Likewise probably for ur other comments. Sorry that 5th source not available to you. I do agree that these articles are not mainly about IFUD. But, IFUD has organized notable events, best covered in Wikipedia indr an IFUD article. --do ncr am 05:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that IFUD organized the show does not make IFUD notable even if the show itself happens to be notable. Everything substantive discussed in the article is clearly identified as contributed by people who have absolutely no connection whatsoever to IFUD. It's those other contributions that the NY Times is reporting. The fact IFUD organized it completely incidental and that's why the mention is only a single trivial sentence. More to point, notability is not WP:INHERITED. The fact the show may be notable (because of all these other notable people) does not make IFUD notable.

Re: the 5th source, I've requested Highbeam access, so maybe I get it soon enough to check on my own. In the meantime, do you have access to the source or are you just assuming it contains helpful information? If you have access, can you quote a small portion as an example of the indepth coverage you feel it contains (and would need to contain) to establish notability? Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had accessed the entirety of each of the 5 articles, i did not merely make assumptions about them. The 5th one was relatively short, quirky article, making the point in a Minneapolis-St. Paul paper, along the lines of pretty much hey, our local mayor has a thing or two to tell those national-level bigwigs at their hifalutin conference; i assume u will dismiss it when u see the article. But I did not say that any one of these would satisfy you as being indepth coverage about IFUD itself that would serve as establishing notability on its own. I think it is well-enough established that IFUD and its predecessor and shows collectively are quite notable. From what you say, you seem to concede that each of the shows IFUD organizes may be notable, but rather than starting separate articles on each of these, these can/should be included (perhaps as separate sections) within this one article titled about IFUD. "IFUD and FUD and their shows" in effect is the topic of the article, which should stay named "IFUD" however, and is a notable topic. --do ncr am 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not conceding that the shows are notable. One article does not qualify as "multiple reliable independent secondary sources". Also, the article really isn't about the show so much as it is about some of the exhibitors. I just don't think this cements the notability of anything. It's just a random news item and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It's just an article about lots of stuff and nothing in particular. And even if I did agree that the show was notable (and I don't), notability is not inherited. I respect your right to your opinion that the subject is notable but I don't share it. Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got my HighBeam access, so I could read the "St. Paul mayor..." story. It's junk. Completely unhelpful. The whole article is only 5 sentences long. The IFUD is mentioned only TRIVIALLY in two sentences. The first is " St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman will share the stage with urban planners from Chattanooga, Tenn.; Cleveland, Pittsburgh and San Jose at a symposium of the Institute for Urban Design in New York City." The second is "The institute, which dates to the glory days of Mayor John Lindsay, is a group of urban design professionals interested in beefing up New York City's design." I'm really disappointed you made me get a HighBeam account to find out this is what you relied on. You should have been able to tell me straight up what I'd find. Msnicki (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I said u'd dismiss it, i explained exactly what it was. U and i disagree about the notability of IFUD, period. Don't insult me with accusations. --do ncr am 14:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also IFUD and something calleed the "Forum for Urban Design" have merged recently (3/2014), per http://www.ifud.org/. So this article can/should be about both, perhaps searching under "IFUD" and under "Forum for Urban Design" would yield even more.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--do ncr am 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 4 August 2014 (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.