- 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 speedy keep. Nom withdraw, any further issues can be resolved on article talk. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
World Resources Institute
- World Resources Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is promotional, entirely primary sourced, and needs so much work that it ought to be deleted or moved to draftspace. A WP:BEFORE reveals a number of passing mentions, but I am struggling to find any substantial coverage. Dysklyver 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem any more or less self-promotional than any other non-profit's wiki page. Insofar as it is, it ought to be easy enough to clean up various non-objective assessments. -- Jon rainheart ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Users have added secondary sources and revised language to address the promotional aspect cited above.-- Lauraleedooley ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, the issues are still there, the section titled 'Initiatives' is both unreferenced and filled with external links to the organizations own website, I am not aware that government departments and non-profits have some special exemption to our rules regarding the promotional nature of mission statements, almost word for word paraphrasing of a press release in the lead, and wording like 'Under the leadership of'. That said, I will run over it myself since I reckon this can be kept as a basic article now. Dysklyver 15:31, 11 October 2017 (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 speedy keep. Nom withdraw, any further issues can be resolved on article talk. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
World Resources Institute
- World Resources Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is promotional, entirely primary sourced, and needs so much work that it ought to be deleted or moved to draftspace. A WP:BEFORE reveals a number of passing mentions, but I am struggling to find any substantial coverage. Dysklyver 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem any more or less self-promotional than any other non-profit's wiki page. Insofar as it is, it ought to be easy enough to clean up various non-objective assessments. -- Jon rainheart ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Users have added secondary sources and revised language to address the promotional aspect cited above.-- Lauraleedooley ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, the issues are still there, the section titled 'Initiatives' is both unreferenced and filled with external links to the organizations own website, I am not aware that government departments and non-profits have some special exemption to our rules regarding the promotional nature of mission statements, almost word for word paraphrasing of a press release in the lead, and wording like 'Under the leadership of'. That said, I will run over it myself since I reckon this can be kept as a basic article now. Dysklyver 15:31, 11 October 2017 (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.