Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Strategic Dialogue

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!} 08:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Strategic Dialogue

[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)

Reads like advert; zero reliable sources. Only blogs, passing WP:MILL mentions and many unreferenced statements. Created by a single purpose account. Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to modify this page to align with Wikipedia guidelines (including reliable sources and references). zahed (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

zahed (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at User:zahed)

This article should be deleted immediately! It is vital to our democracy to allow corporate billionaires and deep state government tyrants running the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, to continue to operate in secret beyond the prying eyes of peasants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.145.163 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "peasantry" will determine notability according to guidelines, honorable comrade. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, wouldn't you want to have objective information about this organisation in Wikipedia for all to see? If there are issues to be raised that can be cited per Wikipedia guidelines, please add them. I've only attempted to fix an article that has been neglected (and improperly formatted) for years. I am happy to leave further building of the article for others also. zahed (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one vote for delete then? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's clear to me that this article is of very low quality (essentially a piece of marketing copy for a political organization), but it seems plausible to me that it nevertheless meets notability guidelines and something reasonable could be salvaged from what we have. I will try to remember to take a look later. jp×g 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The community of editors should be aware of the very important recent report of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue: «Information Warfare and Wikipedia». --Perohanych (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think all of these concerns should apply to this entry for ISD as well. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and have tried to ensure that all citations are notable and credible. But I had to update this entry as it was scheduled for deletion and no one else seemed willing to update this entry to suit Wikipedia guidelines.

As you can see from the report, the Institute is very aware of the importance of Wikipedia and how it can be manipulated by extremists and state actors. I implore other editors to please review the text currently on the ISD entry, correct it, or add to it as appropriate (even including documented controversies or criticism if you can find it). I am not doing this on instruction of the Institute, but as a longtime Wikipedia user who feels that the organisation is notable and worthy of inclusion. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide. zahed (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combines several sources into a decently-sourced article; most aren't about the Organization, but can be used to support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There seems to be some RS coverage, and it's not clear that there was a WP:BEFORE check. It just needs cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some cleaning up for sure but it has enough sources to establish notability. It should be noted that in cases like this we should be flexible. Think tanks and academic institutes don't always have a lot of coverage that is directly about them. But the work they do is notable even if it's passing or primary works. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:22, 26 October 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.