- Intercollegiate Studies Institute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
A well-sourced and neutral article of good quality which was unfairly claimed to be "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I have tried to discuss with the editor who deleted it, but his reply indicated that communication is fruitless. Jonund (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the "discussion" you had with the deleting admin is here, where he points out various items which are problematic, your response to which seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what promotional content is. Anyone familiar with the admin in question I think would find it fair to say (at least) they err on the side of inclusion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and send to AfD, and trout nom. I'm really conflicted here. First, Jonund needs some extensive piscatorial attitude adjustment. One can object to an action without being snotty about it. You usually get a better response that way, too. And, while I agree that the recent versions are pretty bad, if you go back far enough, you can find versions which look reasonable. I'd toss this on the AfD pile and see what the community thinks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a little googling on this. I've found sufficient sources (NY Times, NY Times, New York Sun, Chronicle of Higher Education, Bloomberg) in mainstream national media (OK, maybe The Sun doesn't count as mainstream) to convince me that even if the current article is a mess (and the current set of sources a hopeless mix of first-person references and non-credible blogs), the subject stands a decent chance of surviving AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP's input is a vote for censorship. To claim, for instance, that a phrase like "[I]SI fights alleged political correctness and liberal bias..." is promotional doesn't make sense. The word 'alleged' indicates a neutral description of ISI's program. It is not much better to complain at "[I]SI also grants its most talented student journalists ...". That is not a claim that ISI's students are more talented than others, just information that not all but only their most talented students are granted summer internships and fellowships. You need much fantasy to find all those statements promotional. There are clearly other motives behind the deletion.
- It's an insult to all the editors who have worked on the article over the years to call it "blatant promotion" and claim that there is "Not much worth salvaging". A honest measure - if you really believe there are problems with the article - is to suggest better wordings. User:DGG didn't even bother to take it to WP:AfD. I have no problem with discussing constructively with people who disagree deeply with me, but this is not a mere disagreement. It is a nasty incident, indeed. --Jonund (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP's input is not a vote for censorship (or a vote at all), it's a comment based on understanding (a) the deleting admin's normal outlook (b) an understanding of what promotional wording is and (c) a reaction when recognizing the ranting and rhetoric of those who have no wish to reason, merely demand. "I have no problem with discussing constructively", yet your words here and on the deleting admins page tell quite a different story. If you do indeed stop frothing and discuss reasonably in an attempt to understand what the problem is, and what might be done to resolve it, rather than merely insist on your own personal infallibility, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should not have written while I was angry; my formulation became unnecessarily harsh. But the fact remains, DGG abused his administrators privileges by speedydeleting and insulted editors with the blatantly false claim that there is not much to salvage. That is what made me angry, not the idea that the article is promotional, which can always be discussed. Response to abuse and insults are not a good measure of my ability to talk constructively. Endorsement of the speedydelete is a call for censorship. Give the normal edit procedure a chance instead. --Jonund (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One persons censorship is another persons editing and good housekeeping. Wikipedia has inclusion standards, things not meeting those standards get deleted, that crappy garage band etc. if those writing those articles merely shout censorship, then we don't bend and say you know what we'll include that crap. Jumping up and down shouting censorship for cases like this without demonstrating any basis for such claims is not in any way persuasive. If you think it's going to appeal to some sense of "oh no censorship" reaction I don't want to be labelled with that, then you are mistaken, for me it has quite the opposite effect because for me it undermines any other more credible argument you may present. (Not that at this point I think it matters much given the rest of the discussion here) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If a NPOV editor is willing to work with it, I would be perfectly willing to undelete. it was deleted because neither I nor the speedy nominator saw any way to make this non-promotional without starting over entirely, but if someone else wants a try, I have no objections. I think, actually, that we ought to have an article on the subject. RoySmith? DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Roy Smith's version reads as unbiased, although it needs much work. Restore it, and persuade Intercollegiate and Jonund to leave it alone? The deleted version does not actually contain many more claims of fact, and reads like a cut-and-paste of its web-page (which, if true, would be a copyright violation, contrary to policy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I was the CSD nominator and I agree with DGG's analysis. In response to Roy's comments, I think going back to 2006 for a neutral version is more than a bit extreme. I'm sure a lot has happened to ISI since then, and that 2006 version wasn't exactly a GA candidate or anything. I have no doubt that the subject is notable and deserves an article; but that's not what G11 is about. G11 is about efficiently scrubbing blatant promotion, which is anathema to the project. Btw I would be open to stubbing the article down to its intro. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were no reasonable historical version to go back to, then I agree the need to be fundamentally rewritten clause of G11 would come into play here. But, we have an extant plausible place to back up to (and I'm certainly willing to entertain that there might be better places in the history; I didn't do an exhaustive search) so that seems like the right thing to do. As for Pmanderson's concern that specific editors might steer the article into the weeds again, well, that's life on a wiki. We have lots of tools, ranging from just watching the page, to semi-protection and on up to topic bans, to deal with that. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the subject is something which should be covered in an encyclopedia. Let's not shy away from having articles on good subjects just because they are controversial or attract spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with option to list at AFD. The article has a very substantial history and may even predate the introduction of CSD:G11. I am unconvinced that neither an earlier version nor some heavy trimming would suffice as an alternative to deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to Afd. This page was not "blatant advertising". It is certainly overtly puffy and promotional, but not only did it not need to be fundamentally rewritten, it seems it could have been de-puffed rather easily, and thus its fate should have been put to the community through a proper deletion discussion. Trout nominator for their unnecessary abrasive communication style - that is no way to work in a collaborative environment. Ivanvector (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Come on. This is unadulterated spam too. It - the version RoySmith highlights - starts by saying "As members, these individuals take advantage of a host of programs designed to supplement a collegiate education and to provide access to resources that will help one achieve a genuine liberal arts education". Great! Sign me up! Most of the rest of the article is a non-independent description of the programmes that the Institute offers. Now, this part of the article is not written in a flowery way. But it doesn't need to be to warrant G11 deletion. The most insidious spam is the non-flowery spam, purporting to be written neutrally but offering nothing other than a promotion of an organisation and its services. In this case, the "Programming" section is nothing other than a list of services designed to attract young students. I disagree with DGG about many things. But he knows spam when he sees it and this article was spam right from the outset. Through every single revision of its history. The spam crisis on Wikipedia is currently of gargantuan proportions. The last thing we need to be doing is failing to recognise it when it is there, or getting in the way of administrators and CSD-taggers doing the hard yards to get rid of it. Good deletion. More please. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing the programs neutrally is not a promotion of the organisation, nor a way of attracting students. It tells about the activity and profile of the organisation, and should be included in all articles about organisations. In case the wordings are not sufficiently neutral, that should be easy to fix. --Jonund (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn CSD apply only where they apply. The article didnt meet g11 specs so there shouldve been no g11 deletion. Same time, i object to Stifle's idea that new content rules dont apply to old content... yes they do. Or did I misunderstand the comment (that mustve been it) 185.58.82.6 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete A quick search turned up a surprising number of RS articles. The subject would appear to be notable. Not having seen the recent spammy/promotional article version, I can't comment on the G11 aspect, but it could be restored, stubbed, and improved. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent version can be read here --Jonund (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. Even if the article has been written in an overly promotional style before, it should certainly be possible to allow it to be rewritten in a neutral style. This is a long-standing organization which has been active for over 60 years and is of national scope in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
