Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies

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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies

This Institute fails WP:ORG, it doesn't assert any notability, and as far as I'm concerned, it's also POV. Delete GreenJoe 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a p.r. piece at present by not what else is on the UBC tempalte at the bottom and there will be similar on SFU's. TRIUMF is of course more notable....but if this is a major department of UBC, though only the template implies that, then as an institutinoal creature it's something; does the Wosk Centre for Dialogue have an article I wonder? - iot's certainly more notable (Ben Wosk Centre for Dialogue??) Not t ha the Peter Wall Insittute has yet achieved the, er, notoriety of the Fraser Institute, but then neither has Quest University. It would help if coeporate/wealthy-guy sponsorships didn't come with branding efforts, but then so was Stanford somebody's name at one time. Whatever's POV content here can easily be fixed/neutered; but some notability would be nice, for sure.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I love this edit summary, by the way, as though GreenJoe were doing something for his betrothed; yes, talk about pointy. Anyhow, as we're here, and as the article's creator and author, beyond that I think that this constitutes an interesting case about notability (the accusation that the article is POV is risible). There is a shortage of third-party sources about this institute. There is plenty of information about it from UBC itself, and it is an important part of UBC: a part about which it is understandably proud. It is certainly more important than (say) College for Interdisciplinary Studies, UBC Debating Society, or Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia; it is probably on a par with Liu Institute for Global Issues or Green College, University of British Columbia. Yes, yes, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But let me make one more comparison, to an article with which I am familiar. GNWC, a bright new start-up affiliated (in fairly murky ways) with the university, has achieved multiple third-party references. But that's because they issue a press release whenever someone moves a paper-clip in their offices; as far as I can tell, fully a third of their staff have jobs related in some way to promotion. The PWIAS, so far as I can tell, has yet to release a single press release over the entire course of its existence. How then to judge the place's notability? Well, look at this list of books generated in large part thanks to the institute. It's not exactly a third-party source as per the terms of WP:ORG. But it does, I think, demonstrate the Institute's quiet notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what the purpose is of the edit summary "Keeping a promise" in tagging the article, but it asserts notability (association with university) and is well-sourced. --Laser brain (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Maybe even WP:SNOWBALL. PKT (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the verbiage, merge into University of British Columbia, and redirect. It's polysyllabically and grandly phrased. What does the place do? We read interdisciplinary blah blah blah, and eventually Thematic grants have been on topics such as narratives of illness, and on mechanisms of infectious diseases. I thought the mechanisms of infectious diseases were a matter for epidemiology; where's the interdisciplinary angle? As for "narratives of illness", this sounds like something in a book I chuckled through. These is a source given for this particular claim, but it's members-only. Most of the other notes are from local news sources or the institution itself. There's no obvious reason why it's more remarkable than any other part of UBC, into which its content can be merged. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is a "research institute" at a major research university. It is sourced to reliable sources for the topic - reliable journalistic sources. It is not surprising that local newspapers would cover the institute in the most depth. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, right, it isn't. What I do find odd, however, in view of the high hopes for (or even claims made for) this institute is that little or nothing has yet been found about it from the east of Canada, or from non-Canadian north America, or elsewhere. I'm sure it's worthy, I wish it well, but I can't see how it (yet) differs from any other chunk of a good university other than that it encompasses a wide range of fields and has a large pile of money. There's nothing obviously or inherently wrong about having discrete articles on particular chunks ("schools", "institutes", whatever) of universities -- certainly they're hugely more worthy of articles than are Star Trek rockets, porn actresses, Pokemon, and the other usual suspects -- but I do wonder if their separation doesn't increase the risk of promotion and copyvios. Which is why I say merge is better, at least till an article such as this is more substantial. Hoary (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (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.