Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involve (think tank)

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 delete‎. This was based on source assessment and the lack of reliable, independent sources brought to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

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

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

This article is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation	Self-published, it is primary source.	~ I would think so.	Involve wrote about Involve.	✘ No
Companies House, UK	~ Technically, but are just routine listings.	Government agency. Verified.	Only about Involve.	~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung	Written by independent authors. No affiliation.	Academic paper.	Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO. Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusing a COI or Paid editing with no background. I am sure @Darkm777 would agree. I found the article through random article (alt-shift-x). For the record I have no affiliation with Involve or any comapany/group. "simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet" again, stop accusing editors.

"Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship" If you can prove it with references I will withdraw my nom, till then you have no basis that this think tank is notable.

"Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve", Please read WP:INHERITORG, the Big Tobacco trustee will not make Involve notable. If you think the petition or the trustee are notable write about them, but the think tank doesn't inherit the notability. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk giant I would be glad to reconsider my nomination should you produce some better sources. It doesn't matter how important or popular you think this organization is. If they were popular enough they would have more news coverage and qualify. This is the basis of Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one. Same sentiment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I can't delete this as a Soft Deletion as there is an unbolded Keep vote here. We will need to hear from a few more participants. It would be most helpful if you responded to the source analysis or brought up any new sources you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best coverage I could find was three sentences in this source (pages 160-161), which isn't really significant. Searching for SIGCOV is difficult because of the generic name, and the fact that a lot of sources merely cite one of Involve's publications without covering Involve. My search wasn't exhaustive, but I do not think SIGCOV is likely to exist. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2025 (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.