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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable organization

Note: I have not provided notice to the two principal editors, User:Comm Department (blocked), and User:Microwaveontable (COI); they are likely the same editor anyway. User:Comm Department has also repeatedly uploaded copyvio images on Wikimedia Commons. JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images aren't copyright violations. The user is an ICMPD representative; see ticket 2011091210011893. I'm going to have a hard time explaining to them why they can't edit Wikipedia but yet can still upload images. – Adrignola talk 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is Commons; the English-language Wikikpedia is the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was obviously revised. The information given in the article is based on a source of the UN Refugee Agency which seems to be a reliable source. According to a handbook given an overview of the international organizations in Vienna provided by the City of Vienna (see http://www.wien.gv.at/politik/international/publikationen/pdf/handbuch.pdf, page 40), the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) is an official non-intergovernmental international organization and is non-profit oriented. Therefore I would suggest leaving the article online. (Loestr (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Having used lots of information gleaned from the ICMPD's website and archives for my Master's thesis, I was surprised not to find an entry for the Organization on Wikipedia. Please allow this article to remain online. It's content is correct and informative. It would be amiss for an online encyclopedia such as this one not to feature some sort of information on the well-known and well-respected ICMPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeninwien (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there secondary sources? That is, sources not published by the company itself and not press releases? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above content transcluded from talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment regarding the masters thesis is irrelevant. A third party reproduction of the org's own self-description within a large list does not justify notability for a stand-alone article. So far, the only keep proponents have edited exclusively here and on the ICMPD page in question. JFHJr (㊟) 01:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of secondary sources underlining the notability of the organization. Maybe these could be also include in the respective article. Most sources include the same information as in the respective ICMPD article anyway. See for instance,

The organization has UN observer status (see http://www.un.org/en/members/intergovorg.shtml) (Loestr (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

These are not valid secondary sources. 1) first non-notable article on ICMPD platform; 2) ICMPD source/statement; 3) ICMPD source/statement; 4) profile sources the ICMPD website; 5) duplicate/mirror of first non-notable article on ICMPD platform; 6) second short non-notable article; 7) ICMPD source/statement. If this org were notable, it would have many more secondary sources readily available, third parties that present more than a forum ICMPD-sourced information. JFHJr (㊟) 14:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to point out the slew of recent edits by Jeninwien, Boggess11, Valerie.w, and Loestr since the ICMPD Communications Department account was blocked. These all appear to be single purpose accounts, and if affiliates of the ICMPD, they are operating under a massive conflict of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 14:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clearly reject that I am affiliated with ICMPD. I just want to point out that the organization seems to be a notable one, and is also working together with other international organizations, such as UNHCR, UN, IOM, etc. (see for instance, http://www.escwa.un.org/divisions/scu/migration/Mig06e.pdf). The secondary sources given seem to be reliable - they were found on trustful third party websites, such as the OSCE, UN websites, among others. In addition, the information given is quite descriptive. (Loestr (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to point out that I am not affiliated with the ICMPD. I was looking at the Wiki articles of the various international organisations in Vienna for a presentation for a class at the University of Vienna and was shocked to see there was nothing on ICMPD even though there seems to be lengthy articles for similar organisations like the IOM and OSCE. (Boggess11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Boggess11 began editing the article after it was created; there was more than "nothing" at the time. The only edits began after Comm Department was blocked, and only to this discussion and the article. The coincidence is rather incredible, especially given the number of new accounts involved. A look at the history shows identical editing styles on the same single topic (strings of small edits generally without edit summary). The position Boggess11 has put forward is identical to that of Comm Department in requesting unblock. The fact that other orgs have pages here is irrelevant. Despite Loestr's claim that the sources are "trustful" there is no indication they are valid third party references for the individual reasons listed above. Even assuming they are trustworthy (as opposed to trusting, which they very much seem), the references do not garner notability. JFHJr (㊟) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just google and/or use google scholar, e.g., http://www.eui.eu/Projects/TransatlanticProject/Documents/BackgroundPapers/EU-CooperationChallengesExternalMigrationPolicy.pdf and search for "ICMPD" in this pdf for more third-party references.(Loestr (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is a passing mention in a paper by a visiting fellow at the European University Institute. The passing description cites, inter alia, her own "calculation of non-public financial audits;" one supporting paper/article (“‘We are facilitating states!’ An ethnographic analysis of ICMPD,”) appears mentioned only within the visiting fellow's paper. Taken as a whole, this publication serves to show the organization exists, but little more. Even if this were from a reliable source, this mention does not show notability. JFHJr (㊟) 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the UN General Assembly finds the organization notable enough to grant it Observer Status (http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/57/31) (Loestr (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Too bad that's not the criteria here. JFHJr (㊟) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is obviously notable, although the Wikipedia article might benefit from being stubbed. Google Scholar is the appropriate search tool for this sort of entity. They are often cited, and demonstrably influential in their area of research. Taking at a glance a couple of examples from the first two pages of search results, I can see their research is important to the thesis of http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00114 and they are a common go-to for various estimates, as in http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011259422222 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00023 -DeliciousBits (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than UN observer status, by the way. The UN relies on them. -DeliciousBits (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced this makes the ICMPD individually notable for an article in its own right. They are referenced extensively, however as opposed to information from the org (statements and statistics), there is little reliable or notable information about the org from secondary sources. The same PDF that Delicious says shows the UN relies on the ICMPD equally indicates the same or greater level of reliance on other orgs. Nothing in the PDF says the UN relies on the IMCPD in particular, or even specifically; characterizing the relationship as reliant is novel, since the characterization doesn't actually appear in the text given. ICMPD clearly exists, has experts, opinions, and statistics, but it's not notable enough to have a secondary source about them. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4.570.000 seconday hits on google for ICMPD (not including ICMPD websites - I just put <international center for migration policy development" -site:*icmpd.org> into google). (Loestr (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

JFHJr:

"characterizing the relationship as reliant is novel" — This is a remarkably stupid objection, since I didn't characterize the relationship as reliant in the article, where WP:OR applies. By your own reasoning, then, your characterization of the ICMPD as a "non-notable organization" is novel, since you don't have a reliable source which explicitly says they're non-notable. Case closed; I look forward to your withdrawal of this nomination.

"equally indicates the same or greater level of reliance on other orgs" — And which part of this statement is supposed to be relevant? Notability is not a competition. Let's see which other orgs you're talking about:

“

The Expert Group Meeting on International Migration Statistics (Cairo, 14-16 November 2005) was organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) with the support of the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) and partnership with the following six regional and international organizations: the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE); the International Labour Organization (ILO); the Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for the Islamic Countries (SESRTCIC); the International Organization for Migration (IOM); the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).[1]

”

Oh no! It is a grave insult that the UN is only similarly reliant on these other orgs!

You will similarly find that our article on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has no significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the UN (there is exactly one third-party source, a passing mention in the UK parliamentary proceedings). I think you'd better go nominate that article for deletion too. It is clearly non-notable. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship with the UN isn't the test for organization notability. If secondary sources don't indicate notability, there shouldn't be a stand-alone article on the subject. Even an international NGO is required to have information about it and its activities that can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. This article doesn't pass. JFHJr (㊟) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JFHJr: Please explain the community why, e.g., International Center for Tropical Agriculture, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Portsmouth Northsea Swimming Club, North Ridge Country Club are obviously notable and why ICMPD is not. Thank you very much.(Loestr (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD is not about the other articles. This AfD is about the ICMPD. It needs to be notable in its own right to have a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:NGO. JFHJr (㊟) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the United Nations believes they are notable, then they are notable. Dream Focus 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the policy at Wikipedia:NGO. The ICMPD needs to be notable in its own right under Wiki guidelines to have a stand-alone article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR apply here. Common sense, the United Nations saying its notable, is far more convincing than two random newspapers or magazines somewhere mentioning it. They were seen as experts in their field, obviously. Dream Focus 01:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guideline speaks directly to this situation, and following it would follow Wiki principles. I don't think it would be overly bureaucratic to look to whether an NGO has multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. A stand-alone article on a non-notable subject just isn't encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable org as per nominator - sock draw of conflicted contributors is overflowing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a really shitty thing to say about people. Jeninwien, Boggess11, and Loestr have all declared just why they're participating in the discussion, and two of them did not even !vote. You have no basis for making that insult. If you think better of your final clause and decide to delete it, feel free to delete this response as well. By the way, the word is drawer. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above accounts are pretty conclusively Wikipedia:SPA, and easily fit the definition of meatpuppets. An admin has apparently agreed. JFHJr (㊟) 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a petty belligerent, JFHJr. Let it go, man. Your vendetta is getting ugly. They each declared their reason for participating here, and HelloAnnyong may well not have seen those comments. In any case, one admin's opinion is just that; it is not license for ongoing torment. Let's take them each at their word, given their explanations of their participation. Again, only one of them !voted, so there's really nothing to discuss here at AFD. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JFHJr: What do you pretend to aim with your accusations or it is just paranoia? I don't know and have nothing to do with the other users in this article. (Loestr (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, not paranoia. Just a spate of Wikipedia:SPA fresh off a block and AfD. It's a perfectly legit concern. Regardless of the SPI result, this article's subject still needs notability demonstrated. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a legit concern in this AFD. It is quite irrelevant here. Go find somewhere else to blow your smoke. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the SPA, COI, and meatpuppet issues, I think this might be a weak keep, based on its observer status at UN/UNESCO. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found that the ICMPD has been quoted as experts in multiple articles published in The Economist about human migration. Furthermore, I found a recent article quoting them in the German publication Das Parlament and in a couple of BBC articles. The backbone of any wiki article is the quality of the sources. Economist, BBC and Das Parlament are not too bad. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments by Ryan, I haven't found any good references about the organization (are there any? I looked at some but not all results from those links). As an expert, the org gives figures and analysis on human migration. But that just means the topic is notable. The quotes are in passing; not every expert on a notable issue is notable itself. The expert needs to be notable with its own coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 29 September 2011 (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.