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. Tone 15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archbridge Institute[edit]

Archbridge Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional article. Originally sourced almost entirely to a string of passing mentions in the media, or to byline credits of people associated with Archbridge - but containing no independent RS information about Archbridge. The article creator remove a PROD for bad sourcing not showing notability, and proffered cited sources that comprise an organisation affiliated with Archbridge (Atlas), a directory entry (ProPublica), the Washington Examiner (of dubious reliability per WP:RSP), an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy (so not a WP:NEWSORG) and the bio byline of an article by Archbridge's founder. A WP:BEFORE shows no independent third-party coverage of Archbridge in actual WP:RSes that I could find that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. To be kept, we would need independent third-party coverage in clear RSes that was actually about Archbridge itself, per WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to disagree, but I did put time into the page and Archbridge Institute has been featured in multiple news stories as a purveyor of new research, so that should clear the "notability" hurdle. For example, their president and CEO interviewed the mayor of Miami, who is widely known: https://profectusmag.com/interview-with-mayor-francis-suarez/. Another example is the Washington Examiner and it's ridiculous to suggest they are "an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy." It's clearly a news organization. You can see their dozens of staffers, including editors, here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/staff. Similarly, you can read their editorial policies and standards here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policies-and-standards Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as I said - literally in the text of the nomination - the Washington Examiner is the source listed as being of dubious notability in WP:RSP. The blog with no visible policy that you cited is The BL.

It is entirely unclear how doing an interview in your institute's house magazine makes someone worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Please detail - with reference only to solidly independent mainstream Reliable Sources, not dubious sources, blogs or in-house publications - how the Archbridge Institute meets any of the prongs of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. I went looking for evidence and couldn't find any; if you have any to proffer, those are the criteria that Wikipedia uses.

As I said: I'd be happy to be shown wrong - but it would have to be shown - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Beyond this page, it seems like a problem that right-leaning news sources are so often considered "dubious," when comparable publications on the left side of the aisle pass muster. Do any of the news sources below clear the bar? They are all examples of the Archbridge Institute being mentioned by third-party sources. In the case of PJ Media, they seem to have featured the organization's research extensively (not just in passing): https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/after-1-500-hours-of-training-pritzker-speaks-to-prison-barber-school-grads/article_72ec5306-7ac1-11eb-96b0-837fe1e0118e.html https://angelusnews.com/news/world/religious-minorities-need-help-active-protection-say-advocates/ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/07/31/if-you-want-to-help-minorities-and-the-poor-get-government-out-of-the-way/ https://themreport.com/daily-dose/02-04-2020/housing-market-not-driven-by-highly-leveraged-homeowners https://americanbusinesshistory.org/business-history-podcast-and-video/ https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/08/05/forget-what-the-squad-says-the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-n1467217 https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/05/27/people-with-a-sense-of-purpose-more-likely-to-support-capitalism-study-finds-n436665 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/03/want-to-decrease-inequality-fight-fatherlessness-with-welfare-reform-n1189803 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2019/10/15/free-market-capitalism-is-good-for-democracy-new-study-finds-n69661 Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right vs. left, it's sources that make stuff up or dubious-blog versus normal sane sources that pass WP:NEWSORG. e.g. I closed the recent discussion on very leftist source CounterPunch as "deprecate" because the site was posting conspiracy nonsense about 9/11, COVID and Jews, so the overwhelming consensus was that they were out. But if you're advocating a theory that there's a conspiracy against your desired sources, I should note that's unlikely to convince people in a Wikipedia discussion.

The Center Square article is a passing mention about a survey, not information on Archbridge. Passing mentions are not considered evidence of notability.

The Angelus piece names Archbridge as employing a single staff member in passing.

The OC Register article is a passing mention about a survey, not information on Archbridge.

The M report talks about an article on another site as having been written by someone from Archbridge; it should be obvious that this isn't going to be a usable source on Wikipedia for anything about Archbridge.

The American Business History link is a podcast, of one guy from Archbridge talking to another guy from Archbridge. It should be obvious that this isn't independent third party coverage.

PJMedia has very little recent discussion on WP:RSN, but I expect it would be heading for deprecation in a formal RFC on RSN, for promoting COVID conspiracy theories, election count conspiracy theories, etc - that's what's got a lot of sites deprecated of late. Basically, Wikipedia can't use sources that have a track record of that sort of fabrication. It also doesn't even pretend to be a news outlet - a huge percentage of the articles are editorial rants against corporate media and liberals, not any sort of WP:NEWSORG.

And even then, none of the PJMedia links are about Archbridge itself.

WP:CORPDEPTH - which I've linked a few times already, so I'd expect you to have read it - is pretty clear on this:

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

It also notes:

Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).

so a guy from Archbridge writing an article does not connote notability for Archbridge.

Is there significant coverage of Archbridge itself in independent third-party reliable sources? - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per David Gerard. There is very little in terms of reliable sourcing that is actually about or focused on the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I've performed my own WP:BEFORE and have come to the same conclusion as David Gerard, this doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and I don't think it's even a particularly close call. Additionally, citing publications that refer to COVID as "the CCP Virus" in an effort to prove notability is downright hysterical. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:29, 29 October 2021 (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.