Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (2nd nomination)

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 Astroturfing. Clear consensus that this doesn't need an article; merging there seems reasonable, but that article already includes a brief, sourced paragraph on this topic. Feel free to merge more fully from the history. Mango juice^talk 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty[edit]

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-07. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty.

Non notable. 98 google hits., mostly from blogs. It is mentioned in one issue of Economist, but all they say it's a non-notable organization, for which one can find no details: (the Economist article)

Googling those details shows no trace on the internet for the “Robinson Corbett-Smith” who registered the site on January 14th this year. The address given is a hotel. The phone number is incomplete.

A Lexis-Nexis search for the ICDISS, in all languages and media going back 20 years, produces not a single entry. None of the people supposedly working for it—Joseph Connolly, Megan Stephenson or William Wood—appear in any plausible foreign-policy context in internet searches bogdan 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also claim on their website:

Our annual spring conference is held every year since 2002 at the graduate school of the law faculty of the UNAM, in Mexico City, Distrito Federal (México). Our annual fall conference is held every year since 2004 in Washington, District of Columbia (USA).

1999-2006 © International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

Yet, their domain was registered in January 2006 and there's no proof on the internet or otherwise that it existed previously. bogdan 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody proves me wrong. This seems to be just a website, nothing of substance behind it, and no established notability for sure. However, if there is a story behind it, it might be worthy an article. --dcabrilo 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Petition accepted non-notable, possibly non-existant NGO. It would be quite easy to prove its solidity. But I'm not seeing that. They seem to have no contact information on their website. If they could give sources for the 2003 instance of "Occasionally, these charges have then been repeated on TV (twice, 2003)" [1], I might be inclined to change my position. - FrancisTyers · 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, good find. Let me quote a question found in their FAQ:
FAQ: What is your response to claims that ICDISS does not exist?

People frequently claim that this organization does not exist and I think they might be right. :-) bogdan 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point that the organization is likely a front was the main point of the Economist articles and was discussed in the first AFD. This second nomination discussion brings nothing new to the table. Notable astroturf/disinformation group Bwithh 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bwithh. The bogus nature of the organisation seems to me to have been established beyond reasonable doubt, but it's notable for that reason. Maybe the article title should include a reference to its hoax status. JQ 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems to be a hoax or a front, which probably isn't notable on its own. Could this article possibly be merged with some other entry? SkipSmith 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if only because half of it's citations point to earlier versions of itself. (??) --141.156.232.179 22:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. - Pernambuco 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it has been a while and no further information on the group is forthcoming. Not notable and a possible (very likely) hoax so delete it. - ConsultantJoe 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AdamSmithee 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Astroturfing or Breakthrough (Transnistria) or some list of propoganda organizations. A single reliable source (The Economist) means it deserves a mention somewhere but only a single reliable source means it shouldn't have its own entire article. It's just not interesting enough to warrant an entire article. Also, both the article and the reliable source are using Wikipedia itself as a source so I guess it's original research by proxy. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, a useful example of propaganda; doesn't necessarirly deserve it's own article but the extitng well-referenced info should be used in some way or another.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:20, 3 October 2006 (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.