- 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. signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Liberales Institut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Let's start by ignoring the
WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because
this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up. I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider
WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources,
this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that
the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article
[1] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner
[2]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later...
Oaktree b (
talk)
13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the
Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes.
JFHJr (
㊟)
21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the
Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes.
JFHJr (
㊟)
21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [3] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [4] Oaktree b ( talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member.
JoelleJay (
talk)
02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is
Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,
, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- I respectfully disagree on both points.
- 1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.
- 2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 ( talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is
- There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
-
User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''
Wickster12345 (
talk)
06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
- I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required.
JFHJr (
㊟)
04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required.
JFHJr (
㊟)
04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 ( talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
- Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved. 71.246.78.77 ( talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies
WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or
WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (
- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed
here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is
here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with
JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open.
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you
Wickster12345 (
talk)
20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 ( talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you
Wickster12345 (
talk)
20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open.
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with
JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed
here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is
here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (
- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies
WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or
WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA ( talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 ( talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [5], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).
- Searching for
NZZ articles in
PressReader, I've found
an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and
this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in
SRF that two notable people are members
[10]
[11], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription.
Toadspike
[Talk]
17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [12] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 13:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Liberales Institut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Let's start by ignoring the
WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because
this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up. I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider
WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources,
this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that
the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article
[1] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner
[2]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later...
Oaktree b (
talk)
13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the
Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes.
JFHJr (
㊟)
21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the
Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes.
JFHJr (
㊟)
21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [3] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [4] Oaktree b ( talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member.
JoelleJay (
talk)
02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is
Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,
, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- I respectfully disagree on both points.
- 1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.
- 2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 ( talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is
- There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
-
User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''
Wickster12345 (
talk)
06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
- I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required.
JFHJr (
㊟)
04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required.
JFHJr (
㊟)
04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 ( talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
- Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved. 71.246.78.77 ( talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies
WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or
WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (
- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed
here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is
here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with
JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open.
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you
Wickster12345 (
talk)
20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 ( talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you
Wickster12345 (
talk)
20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open.
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 ( talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with
JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed
here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is
here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (
- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now.
Wickster12345 (
talk)
04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies
WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or
WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA ( talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 ( talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [5], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).
- Searching for
NZZ articles in
PressReader, I've found
an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and
this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in
SRF that two notable people are members
[10]
[11], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription.
Toadspike
[Talk]
17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [12] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 13:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.