Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Strategic Research Organization

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 of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Strategic Research Organization

As the publisher of the already discredited-on-wikipedia Review of International Law and Politics, the "International Strategic Research Organization should be deleted along with it. The organizations director created this page for no other reason than to promote it and as a vanity page. It is not appropriate for wikipedia, it is not any kind of leading world organization as it claims. Vartan84 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a serious and respectable organization. I don't buy the "already discredited-on-wikipedia" argument. First, the jury is still out. Secondly, if a bad entry is written on (for example) the Harvard Business Review, so that the consensus is: delendum esse, should that then really imply that the article on the Harvard Business School should also be deleted? What about this hypothesis: the director of ISRO created this page because he believed it would enhance the value of Wikipedia as a repository of encyclopedic information? Why this hostile approach? Assume good faith. Although it is not recommended to write about yourself, it is not against policy. The article can be improved, but it is serious, not gone overboard. It does not claim that ISRO is a leading world' organization, but a leading Turkish organization, which is true in its field. The "pure vanity" lines you removed were not added by prof. Laciner but apparently by Barış Sanlı, IT editor for Turkish Weekly. --Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, parts of the article are even written in the first-person plural, as it describes the guidelines for accepting submissions. The link to the allegedly famous ISRO goes to some Indian Space Organization. And most of all, if I try to find any cooberating information about this organization on Google I find no more than 10 unique hits, many of which being to its listing on wikipedia or affliates. The only pages that mention it seem to be: once on a Turkish newspaper site (the Turkish Weekly in fact, someone from whom has helped to updated the Organization's wikipedia page), one or two other (sometimes broken) links, and funniest of all a porn page. A sign of its notability would be it showing up multiple times on Google being referenced by outside sources, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Sure if we want to enhance wikipedia as "a repository of encyclopedic information" that's just fine, however that does not mean we put everything and everyone in existence on it. Claiming it was done to enhance encyclopedic knowledge is just a nice way to gloss over the fact it appears to have largely been done for the sake of self-promotion by the journal's publisher. Vartan84

What exactly is your problem? This article should be deleted because the organization publishes a journal on whose page the editor wrote "We welcome" instead of "The journal welcomes"? That is a clearcut reason for deletion if I ever saw one. Did you check? Maybe that qualifies for a speedy! As to Google: try this: "Uluslararası Stratejik Arastirmalar Kurumu". If your Turkish is not up to par, "International Strategic Research Organization" gives enough hits from outside sources. And should that not be enough, here you'll find some more: ISRO USAK. --Lambiam^Talk 05:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep with lots of eyerolling. Quite obviously this is a project by the members of this group to publish every single tidbit of information about themselves and their institute (including the ever-popular notability-by-association info: We're notable because someone from Northwestern stopped by), but as an Institute they might actually be above the notability threshold. Now can we agree that we keep their entries restricted to the institute itself and its most prominent member, and not give every "world famous" second tier executive valuable cyberspace too? Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep --Cat out 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, its content is problematic, but USAK itself is well known, especially in Turkey. It is a respected research organization, it can stay. - Kubra 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keepper Kubra and Trialsanderrors. Must however be rewritten, and all the sub branches of this think tank should be merged with the mother article. Bertilvidet 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if the figures in Anatolian Turkish diaspora (that i just tried to improve a bit [1], with explaining everything in the talk page) really come from ISRO, as stated in the beginning of the article (without providing a link though...), i will have to vote for either speedy delete or ask for a total rewrite, so as the article to come up to Wikipedia standards, and say what it really is: a turkish POV pushing organisation, with no neutrality and actual research. --Hectorian 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thats intriguing. However your feelings towards the organisation is of no concern to wikipedia. If you can source your claim please feel free to add it to the article in perhaps a criticism section. Also please see the article Think Tank. Such criticism aplies to many other think tanks and they all have their articles. --Cat out 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  I perfectly know what a think tank is. Apropos, i did not vote for the deletion of the article, but i added a comment (for which i got no answer, though...). My feelings towards this or other organisations or whatever, is noone's business, and that's why i am not pushing POV in Wikipedia. As for the sources of my 'claims', i have provided links about the article mentioned above (common! everyone can see it is POV!). since the users who have voted for keeping it, are probably aware of USAK, can someone tell me if the figures provided are from this organisation? (cause if they are not, i am obviously wrong about it...) --Hectorian 16:25, 8 June 2006 (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.