- 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 redirect to State of the Future. I am going to close this "redirect" even though no one called for that. The only cited claim on the page is that they are publishers of this report and the references all discuss the reports, not the organisation. I find that the arguments of the keep camp are all some variety of claims of inherited notability, either by virtue of the parent organisation, or of the child reports. This kind of notability has no basis in policy whereas the delete camp's case of insufficient sourcing certainly does. Our usual method of dealing with inherited notability is to redirect, so I feel that this is a legitimate close. There is no pressing need to have the history deleted and retaining it will facilitate resurrecting the article should someone find decent sources in the future. Spinning Spark 12:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Millennium Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, tagged since February 2013. Part of a walled garden, including Jerome C. Glenn (deleted after AFD) and State of the Future. Randykitty ( talk) 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The only references in the article are from the subject itself. Research suggests that only its own site references itself. No notability. -- Rpclod ( talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - This article was previously kept at
WP:VFD see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project.
GB
fan 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That is actually two separate Keeps, GB, it was Kept at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Millennium Project and Kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project.It was also Proposed for Deletion and Kept on July 30, 2014. Anarchangel ( talk) 02:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) My bad, Votes is the old name, so I thought it was an older process, but it is just a redirect. Anarchangel ( talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability hasn't changed since last AfD. Still needs citations, but I've found it referenced on UNESCO's site, and added a reference to an article about one of their reports. XeroxKleenex ( talk) 03:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Last AfD (at that time still called VfD) was over 9 years ago. Our inclusion criteria have changed significantly since then. Please note that the article was bad enough already, but was edited extensively by an IP yesterday and now actually really falls under CSD G11... I'm not going to revert all that, but will let the AfD run its course first. BTW, I don't see any reference to a UNESCO site. (But if it exists, it probably concerns the UN task force of the same name (see below). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep(strike) The organization has many mentions in third party independent books see"The Millennium Project"(past the first page of results). -- Green C 04:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have the impression that there are two entities of this name. One is this one, "an independent think thank". The books make reference to a "task force commissioned by the UN secretary-general". Given the promotional efforts of IPs, if this Millennium Project had such an origin, it most certainly would be mentioned in the article. Instead, there's some vague references to indirect contacts of the founder with the UN University and such. In addition, several of the book hits that you link to above are reports by the (UN) Millennium Project, but again, not even the current promotional version of the article claims these publications. So whereas the UN task force may have some notability, this one doesn't. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 08:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would you perhaps care to expand on the reasoning behind your cryptic !vote? Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as it is affiliated with the State of the Future report which (imo) is notable, although I am interested in Randykitty's take that there are two separate organizations, so I may switch this vote depending on what I learn. Right now I won't be able to do much for the next few days.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have not seen any evidence that SotF is notable, except in the eyes of the Millennium Project itself. If you read their homepage, you will see that they carefully avoid saying that they are affiliated with the UN (which, as a Google Books search shows, did have a similar named "task force" years ago). They repeat that on their about page, where they finally clearly state that they are an "independent think tank". As their tax return shows, whereas they "estimate" to have 150 volunteers, they employ only 4 persons. For an organization claiming to have 50 "nodes" worldwide, total revenue of $255,390 and total expenses of $277,913, with total assets below $20k, their budget is decidedly on the modest side (to use an understatement)... -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Generally agree with Randykitty's analysis; seems like there are two organizations; this Millennium Project is a spin-off from the UN a while back but is not associated with them, rather it is really a nonprofit consultancy. There is also a residential development in California called the Millennium Project, as well as other names coming up "Millennium Project" (popular name apparently). There was MUCH CRUFT in a previous draft of the article, unsourced content clearly promotional, which I have (hopefully) removed entirely. So, what do we have left? About six sources covering its State of the Future report, which like it or not, is described as "authoritative" and which has a major impact, regardless of the size of the organization (4 employees), budget of $250K/year. The sources do not talk much about the organization itself, but rather the focus is on the annual report and what it says. So, at this point, my best guess would be to combine the State of the Future article with this stubbified content of The Millennium Project into one article -- and that would be notable. Having two separate articles I think is overkill.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only references are the organization itself, not enough coverage. Frmorrison ( talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, lots of self-referential sources but nothing that is independent or substantial enough to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
- Comment I am struggling with this one because I can't ever tell if I'm looking at the same Milennium Project. I think this is about the same one. If so it was named 6th best think tank that would be notable although I can't verify that claim. It's a tough one.
- 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 redirect to State of the Future. I am going to close this "redirect" even though no one called for that. The only cited claim on the page is that they are publishers of this report and the references all discuss the reports, not the organisation. I find that the arguments of the keep camp are all some variety of claims of inherited notability, either by virtue of the parent organisation, or of the child reports. This kind of notability has no basis in policy whereas the delete camp's case of insufficient sourcing certainly does. Our usual method of dealing with inherited notability is to redirect, so I feel that this is a legitimate close. There is no pressing need to have the history deleted and retaining it will facilitate resurrecting the article should someone find decent sources in the future. Spinning Spark 12:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Millennium Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, tagged since February 2013. Part of a walled garden, including Jerome C. Glenn (deleted after AFD) and State of the Future. Randykitty ( talk) 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The only references in the article are from the subject itself. Research suggests that only its own site references itself. No notability. -- Rpclod ( talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - This article was previously kept at
WP:VFD see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project.
GB
fan 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That is actually two separate Keeps, GB, it was Kept at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Millennium Project and Kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project.It was also Proposed for Deletion and Kept on July 30, 2014. Anarchangel ( talk) 02:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) My bad, Votes is the old name, so I thought it was an older process, but it is just a redirect. Anarchangel ( talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability hasn't changed since last AfD. Still needs citations, but I've found it referenced on UNESCO's site, and added a reference to an article about one of their reports. XeroxKleenex ( talk) 03:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Last AfD (at that time still called VfD) was over 9 years ago. Our inclusion criteria have changed significantly since then. Please note that the article was bad enough already, but was edited extensively by an IP yesterday and now actually really falls under CSD G11... I'm not going to revert all that, but will let the AfD run its course first. BTW, I don't see any reference to a UNESCO site. (But if it exists, it probably concerns the UN task force of the same name (see below). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep(strike) The organization has many mentions in third party independent books see"The Millennium Project"(past the first page of results). -- Green C 04:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have the impression that there are two entities of this name. One is this one, "an independent think thank". The books make reference to a "task force commissioned by the UN secretary-general". Given the promotional efforts of IPs, if this Millennium Project had such an origin, it most certainly would be mentioned in the article. Instead, there's some vague references to indirect contacts of the founder with the UN University and such. In addition, several of the book hits that you link to above are reports by the (UN) Millennium Project, but again, not even the current promotional version of the article claims these publications. So whereas the UN task force may have some notability, this one doesn't. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 08:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would you perhaps care to expand on the reasoning behind your cryptic !vote? Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as it is affiliated with the State of the Future report which (imo) is notable, although I am interested in Randykitty's take that there are two separate organizations, so I may switch this vote depending on what I learn. Right now I won't be able to do much for the next few days.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have not seen any evidence that SotF is notable, except in the eyes of the Millennium Project itself. If you read their homepage, you will see that they carefully avoid saying that they are affiliated with the UN (which, as a Google Books search shows, did have a similar named "task force" years ago). They repeat that on their about page, where they finally clearly state that they are an "independent think tank". As their tax return shows, whereas they "estimate" to have 150 volunteers, they employ only 4 persons. For an organization claiming to have 50 "nodes" worldwide, total revenue of $255,390 and total expenses of $277,913, with total assets below $20k, their budget is decidedly on the modest side (to use an understatement)... -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Generally agree with Randykitty's analysis; seems like there are two organizations; this Millennium Project is a spin-off from the UN a while back but is not associated with them, rather it is really a nonprofit consultancy. There is also a residential development in California called the Millennium Project, as well as other names coming up "Millennium Project" (popular name apparently). There was MUCH CRUFT in a previous draft of the article, unsourced content clearly promotional, which I have (hopefully) removed entirely. So, what do we have left? About six sources covering its State of the Future report, which like it or not, is described as "authoritative" and which has a major impact, regardless of the size of the organization (4 employees), budget of $250K/year. The sources do not talk much about the organization itself, but rather the focus is on the annual report and what it says. So, at this point, my best guess would be to combine the State of the Future article with this stubbified content of The Millennium Project into one article -- and that would be notable. Having two separate articles I think is overkill.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only references are the organization itself, not enough coverage. Frmorrison ( talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, lots of self-referential sources but nothing that is independent or substantial enough to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
- Comment I am struggling with this one because I can't ever tell if I'm looking at the same Milennium Project. I think this is about the same one. If so it was named 6th best think tank that would be notable although I can't verify that claim. It's a tough one.
- 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.