Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management

Rationale for closure as delete

This AfD has created considerable heat, including a legal threat from the president of the subject of the article in question. Legal threats of course create considerable cooling effect on discussions and debates and by themselves taint consensus building mechanisms on Wikipedia. I find myself concerned of the possibility of being embroiled in a legal battle of which I have no desire to be part, simply by way of closing this AfD. The IP from which the president of this company posted the legal threat has been blocked for the maximum period of time that an IP may be blocked [1]. This was appropriate, but it should also be noted that this person was most certainly unaware of our policies on legal threats [2] and their effect on our consensus building mechanisms.

In the interests of full disclosure; I speedy deleted a prior version of this article in January of this year [3]. The complete content of the article at that time was:

“ International Institute of Management (IIM) is an advanced executive education and development institute. IIM is known for its accelerated and online executive MBA programs and management best practices research. Other IIM services include the annual management conference held in Las Vegas USA, CEO club networking events, executive search, and the publishing of executive journal and its annual management papers awards. To learn more visit http://www.iim-edu.org ”

The then creator of the article contacted me regarding the deletion of this article, and I gave a carefully considered response to that person, which may be found at [4]. While I can understand and appreciate that some parties may find my involvement in the closing of this debate as a biased move, such a concern should not be felt. I have no vested interest in IIM or in the existence or lack thereof of this article on Wikipedia. I am simply acting in my role as an administrator to close this debate. I recognize that some administrators will steer away from closing this debate because of the nasty environment that has evolved. Given my prior involvement with this debate, my continued presence as an administrator is more appropriate, and not less so.

The current version of the article and the speedy deleted version are considerably different versions. I commend the creators and editors of the current version in creating an article that was worthy of a discussion regarding deletion rather than speedy deletion, which given the then current content of the article in January was entirely appropriate. The current version is not worthy of speedy deletion and having this discussion, though heated, has helped to resolve this matter. While any resolution to this matter will leave some with dissatisfaction with the result, a conclusion must of course be reached. Discussions on AfD are now held for five days, and we are past that standard now. Given the presence of a legal threat and the recruitment of meatpuppets to this discussion, continuance of this discussion is unlikely to lead to a crystal clear consensus.

Meatpuppetry and its effect on consensus

Let's be clear; what we are attempting to determine here is a consensus regarding whether this article should exist on Wikipedia at this time. This is not a vote, but an attempt at gaining consensus. If we look strictly at votes, regardless of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, the result is 19 for deletion and 8 for retention, or 70.3%. If we disregard meatpuppet votes, then it is 86.4% to delete. Some would argue that that is ample reason to delete this article. It is not.

The core issue is consensus; what it is, and how we evalute it specifically with regards to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The existence of meatpuppet votes most certainly taints the consensus building attempt, as such a presence unduly swings the balance of a discussion in favor of one stance or another.

User:Miro.gal was most likely unaware of our stance regarding meatpuppet votes. He also felt highly motivated to recruit inclusionists to the discussion, a position I can understand even if the outcome of it was flawed. However, his efforts miss the central point of an AfD; it is not a vote. It is a consensus building mechanism. By recruiting meatpuppets, he irrevocably tainted the discussion and fundamentally undermined the ability of wikipedians to develop consensus. I excuse User:Miro.gal from knowledgeable wrongdoing, but he should be cautioned that future meatpuppetry attempts will not be viewed in anywhere near as kind of a light.

User:Miro.gal should understand that AfD is, inherently, a deletionist process. Articles tend not to make it to AfD unless some basis for it to be deleted. He may find a reading of Wikipedia:AFD 100 days to be rather revealing regarding the nature of AfD and note that the proponderance of votes over the span of that study are for deletion.

Nobody made any effort to recruit deletionist meatpuppets. Had anyone done so, the discussion would not have been any more corrupted than it already has been, but the percentage of votes would most likely have swung even further in support of deleting this article. But again, this is not a vote. We are here to build consensus. Meatpuppetry is inherently antithetical to this process.

Points raised and their effect on inclusion/deletion

A considerable number of points have been raised regarding whether this article should be retained or deleted.

• Does this company exist?: Yes, the company clearly exists. Nobody disputes the company's existence. However, the existence of the company is not a reason for inclusion. We can verify its existence but we must verify its impact from a neutral point of view, i.e. an external source (not IIM or EUMEDIS).
• This company is not accredited: Irrelevant. As supporters of inclusion have noted, such programs have no requirement upon them to be accredited, nor are they regulated by the U.S. Department of Education. As others noted in the discussion, this company did at one time claim to have MBA programs. Again, this is irrelevant; they do not make this claim now as a careful review of their website shows.
• Involvement with EUMEDIS: As amply demonstrated by the supporters of this article, this does go to show notability. However, as demonstrated by those in favor of deletion, a broad number of organizations can make such a claim. IIM's specific role and how significant that role is within that organization is uncertain and the impact of that role is difficult to verify through external resources.
• Search engine visibility: This has been used as an argument both in favor and in opposition to the notability of this organization. Again, notability is not the core concern here. However, such visibility is important to the verifiability and neutral point of view of the article. As some opposers have noted, there is little material available independent of EUMEDIS or IIM available on the web. This compromises the ability of wikipedia editors to write an article about this organization, and thus this becomes an exceptionally strong reason for deletion.
• Connection with Fortune 1000 executives: While this is admirable (and I am not disputing its veracity or lack thereof), it needs to be considered that this company's role and effect on these individuals has had no verifiable effect upon these individuals. The lack of availability of any evidence external to IIM to show this effect is a further reason to delete this article; if indeed this company is important then its output in the form of impact on Fortune 1000 executives should be verifiable to some degree, but nobody has produced any evidence to support this.
• Other articles on similar entities existence on Wikipedia: This argument is frequently used by supporters of inclusion on various AfDs. The argument is without merit; Wikipedia is imperfect and not uniform in its application of standards of inclusion nor can it be expected to be so in an inherently subjective environment. Further, this argument does not have relevance with regards to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, our guiding principles in deciding consensus.
• International presence: Their international presence is not in dispute. However again, this is not a reason for inclusion. To what level is their international presence, how significant is it, and can we verify this from a neutral point of view? Given the lack of sources not connected with IIM or EUMEDIS, it is virtually impossible to verify this presence from a significance standpoint. A company can be founded with a fantastic marketing and business plan, have sufficient venture capital, and open offices in Sydney, Cairo, Buenos Aires and Paris. While it would immediately have international presence, it as yet has no impact. IIM may at some point in the future have significant international impact but as yet such presence is exceedingly difficult to verify and measure in any manner.
• Satellite broadcasts: This is interesting but not by way of it being a satellite broadcast, but instead by way of it receiving a hot bird award (also see [5]. A satellite broadcast is hardly remarkable in this day and age where virtually every broadcast goes in some way through a satellite. The award is remarkable. It is the one point in favor of keeping this article that I find compelling as it is an external evaluation of the product of this company by a board of 200 people who found this particular product remarkable. But there's the rub; this particular product. If this company has significant impact, there certainly should be substantial other works that attest to this and such evidence does not seem to exist.

IIM may at some point in the future be significant enough for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia. At this time, it is my evaluation that it has yet to do so, though its significance has gone up in the last two years. If/when it does attain significant enough presence to have external resources attesting to its significant presence, I invite those interested in having an article on this subject to write such an article. As such, I am not going to protect this page and place a {{deletedpage}} template on it as the subject of the article is not historical; its status with regards to our standards may in fact change. However, I caution those that would want this article to be included to not frivolously recreate this article without there being a substantial change in the ability to verify the company's claims to fame external to IIM and EUMEDIS resources. Such a recreation will be viewed poorly here by a number of editors.

Respectfully, --Durin 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some people thought it wasn't notable enough, but where was their evidence? It seems clear those who wanted to keep it provided some evidence of it's notability. Where is the contrary evidence? Mathiastck 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• See the AfD. Substantial evidence was provided. --Durin 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)