Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table

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 hopeless trainwreck where no consensus can be found. This page will be immediately renominated for deletion. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Round Table

Oxford Round Table (ORT) is a minor business venture that involves a conference organised by an American company but convened in an Oxford college. Some Oxonians are incensed by this, and there has been a small amount of brouhaha on forums as a result, but the sources do not indicate that this is actually notable or significant, only that it exists. A short piece in the TES, for example, but that does not establish the supposed notability of the company. Most of the sources are either primary (business registration data) or not independent (the company's own website); much of the article reads as orignial research (e.g. the linking of the for-profit and non-profit companies, and the statement that they are members of the same family, which has no source; it's not an especially uncommon surname); and most of the substantive edits, including initial creation, have been made by single purpose accounts on one side or other of the external dispute, most of them heavily conflicted. Add to this a new twist: a complaint to the Foundation, discussing legal action being taken against one of the activists pushing in the direction of criticism and negative material. In my opinion, this article is more trouble than it is worth, given the marginal notability of the subject and the fact that the article itself exists, per present evidence, almost exclusively as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared that we were close to consensus among all parties (including one representing the ORT) until the Oxford Round Table came in yesterday with apparent legal threats. As Tony Sidaway points out on the talk page for this article, what you describe as a "new twist" is actually an ORT person's description of something that happened in May 2007, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. You do not specify whether a legal threat has been made to the Wikimedia Foundation; I would be interested to know if that is the case.

Meanwhile, I have begun working on sourcing for the family connections, as you will see on the article's talk page. However, I doubt that the ORT can seriously be disputing that Kern Alexander III is the son of Kern Alexander, Jr.Academic38 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No threats were made, as I understand it there is legal action in process against one of the individuals who appears incidentally to be editing this article. Inserting content and then "working on sourcing" it is a bad idea; source first, then add it. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that Sloan Mahone is working on this article? I think that would be a very dumb thing for her to do. As for content, I agree that sourcing first is correct, but I had not imagined that asserting that XYZ III is XYZ Jr.'s son could be controversial. While "Alexander" may be a common name, all of the men in it have K's in their name: Kern Jr., Kern III, King, Klint, and they all appear as directors in various combinations in over 20 corporations the Alexander family has established in Florida, Kentucky, and Illinois. Not even anyone on the ORT side has objected to these assertions of relationship.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak keep - Contributors to this article, while many operate as WP:SPA, do seem to be steadily improving their approach towards editing the article, working towards achieving consensus on the talk page and avoiding continued edit warring, which demonstrates that even editors with a clear conflict of interest can be brought together to work towards improving content on Wikipedia. Neither COI nor SPA are grounds for article deletion; both are only guidelines, they are not policies. As WP:SPA specifically states: "such accounts are permitted". There also appears to be little disruption to the encyclopedia as a whole, as a result of COI activity on this one article. The disputes and edit warring between involved parties (aside from it quietening down now) are limited to this one entry. In terms of notability; the organisation itself does seem notable: Oxford colleges hosting ORT events have noted as much on their websites (e.g. here), it is reported in valid secondary sources (e.g. here, here and here), and notable academics have been in attendance at ORT events (e.g. Michael_Beloff and Norbert_Lammert). It seems as if it's notable within academic circles. These are just a few cursory references dug up from a Google search: I haven't taken part in any searches for citations but I am certain that if those are to be found in ten minutes there are more fitting and solid references to be found. What this article needs is improvement by way of neutral editors working to establish WP:NPOV. The article is not irredeemable. In addition, I don't recall legal threats to Wikimedia Foundation being grounds for article deletion, per WP:CENSOR and WP:NLT, but if I'm wrong on that then let me know with some examples. Coldmachine^Talk 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question about legal threats: Probably the closest analog are the BLP standards. Of course the context is different, but I think the spirit "marginal notability => respect wishes of the subject" may be appropriate to follow over to this case.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched my !vote to delete: really, I had been trying to help the SPA editors come together to reach consensus, and it seemed like progress was being made: I posted on ANI to request help but the community ignored this; some neutral editors did finally come along and again it looked like progress was being made. This AfD has merely drawn everyone into partisan lines once more, and I am offended by two accusations which fail to assume good faith about my editing intentions on this entry. I am recusing myself from the article, switching my !vote to delete, and don't wish to be contacted about this entry. It's really not worth the energy I've been expending. Coldmachine^Talk 09:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is very unfortunate, but it demonstrates the effect that the ORT's bullying has. I suggest it is wrong for Wikipedia to let itself be bullied.Academic38 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I worked on this a bit sometime back, and found that there are very few reliable sources to establish notability of the company. It likely fails a strict interpretation of the company notability guideline. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I've been reading through the CHE forums and this page. (I have been researching the topic trying to decide whether or not to attend the conference). Although I understand many of the concerns raised, it appears the only solid source of evidence in support of the controversial components of this page (which sadly seem to undergird most of the page's existence) is an article summing up the claims made in the forum. I'm not sure why this particular venue is so polarizing, but as a journalist, I would never consider a summary of an Internet forum as an authoritative source worthy of inclusion in a publication, physical or electronic. This entry was of little help to me, and seemed based more on conjectured and unanswered (unsupported, anyway) questions than sourced information. Jrichardstevens (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I am one of the SPA accounts (I gather it is important to be up-front about that). My opinion probably won't count for much, but I will offer a bit of data for your consideration, in relation to notability: a search for "Oxford Round Table" on Nexis produces 147 hits in the category of newspaper articles. Entirely normal newspapers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of the notability of the ORT is the infamy itself, that is, if they are visible enough (which seems to be the case) then readers will in fact look here to research them, e.g. in deciding whether to submit a contribution or to attend. So even if ORT were outright fraud, it would be disservice to delete the article. However, note that Oxford can summarily dump them at any time for any reason; it's not like landlords wanting to break a lease with a troublesome tenant. The mere fact that the conference continues to be held at Oxford, when some object to their use of the name, suggests notability. Believe me, if I held a KKK rally by renting Duke's gym during the off-season, and called it "KKK, Duke Chapter" they'd throw me out in a heartbeat. It looks like the article has serious difficulties with numerous concerned editors (concerned one way or another) but our difficultly presenting the material correctly is not in itself a reason to dump the article. The article subject seems both notable and useful, even if the article presentation is quarrelsome. Pete St.John (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infamy, what is that being based on? We have one reliable independent source that actually gives us info. That one source hardly proves that ORT is a evil organisation, it doesn't even demonstrate that ORT is all that controversial - merely that contributors to the forums object to it. (They may be evil, but no reliable source actually demonstrates that).--Nilf anion (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a researcher who found this page as I was trying to decide whether or not to attend, let me offer my refutation to the notion that this article is a valuable device for people in my position. It does not appear many (if ANY) of the critics driving this "controversy" have actually been to the gathering. The discussion forum widely cited appears driven mostly mostly on speculation and snarky comments (and some admittedly crack online research, though mostly focused on resolving specious claims and questions). How can a venue be "infamous" only in the eyes of those who haven't attended? Why do their voices (whether first hand or second hand) warrant the authority necessary to justify this "controversy's" existence? I see little difference between this event and the myriad of conferences that promote their venues as an attractive component of the package. I am not an editor for this article and will not become one. But please don't venture to speak for me or those in my position on such flimsy pretense.Jrichardstevens (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a marginal demonstration of notability, and the organisation doesn't appear to meet the relevant guideline. The news articles I checked all refer either to ORT in passing, not as the article's subject, or to a different organisation entirely (fireworks?). The external dispute boiling over to Wikipedia isn't directly relevant, but doesn't help with the article's quality at all or make the subject any more notable.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 147 newspaper articles (as per Nexis search on “Oxford Round Table”) – how on earth does this not meet the guideline on notability? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 20, 2000, “Superintendent To Join Oxford's Round Table”; Albuquerque Journal, September 8, 2004, “Pastor Attends Oxford Meeting”; Charleston Gazette, April 25, 2003, “State native goes to Oxford forum” – I’m sure no one wants me to go extend this list further here, but it could easily be done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are about the various individuals, not the organisation. They don't establish that the organisation is notable, merely that people go to it (which is obvious), we need articles about ORT to establish notability.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles are about the participation of the individuals in the event organised by the organisation. The reason for the writing/publication of the articles is (participation in) the event, not the attributes/qualities of the individuals. A reporter or editor who writes/publishes an article about someone going to ORT does so because participation in the event seems significant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would anyone like to buy an Oxford round table? It's cheaper than attending the seminar...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a person who found the ORT Wikipedia page on the web because a professor thought the conference was very informative and interesting, I am a bit disturbed how individuals can come on this forum and gloss over the conference itself, but highlight the 'controversy'. I have been viewing this page in silence, sometimes, and it just seems so pointless. More people are attempting to cover minor gossip, than have an informative article! I can see everyone's prospective, but I just think it make Wikipedia look very unreliable when the article acts more as a gossip column than a strictly fact-filled article. Just my thoughts!! LAstride (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)— LAstride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep It is admitted on all sides that there is notable controversy over this organisation; therefore it is notable and should have an article. Argument over the content of the article belongs elsewhere. We do not delete articles because the might contain unsourced material if it is not removed, because people threaten legal action over it, or because different entities dispute the status. We edit it in a neutral fashion. I have no knowledge or interest with respect to this organisation in particular. i do have a very strong feeling that we must never let outside influences dictate the contents of wikipedia, or make sufficient inconveniences that we abandon our own neutrality. Editors who despair of getting their own way on an article often propose to delete it: they should be ignored. DGG (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a notable controversy? We have just one source on that subject. The editors involved on both sides have strong feelings about the dispute, but that does not mean that their fight is worth our time to document.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another SPA here. I would like to second DGG's comment that editors despairing of not getting their own way vote for deletion. That seems to be the case with ORT people here. As for the relevant guideline, there is one article specifically about the controversy that is independent and quoted all sides. Moreover, that guideline says that being a national or international organization is grounds for considering in notability, and the ORT certainly meets that criterion. Then there is the article by Richard Margrave in The Times of November 1, 1993, specifically discussing a meeting of the ORT. The article does get demerits because he was a participant, but a quick Google search turns up plenty of evidence that he is an important person in UK education. So, I would suggest by the guideline Nilfanion cited, the ORT is already notable. Also, what if the THES does a follow-up piece (for example, when the UK lawsuit is resolved, as it will be one way or another) or the ORT people produce the independent sources they claim to have on the article's talk page? Notability will be even more strongly established, and all the work that has gotten close to consensus would be wasted, if the article is deleted.
BTW, I am sure Nilfanion is correct that the fireworks organization named Oxford Round Table is a different organization. It appears to be based in Oxford.Academic38 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the challenge is that the reliable sources are not available to establish notability. There are notable people involved with the conferences, notable people object to them on internet forums, summaries of internet forum discussions are published in ordinarily reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The 1993 article in The Times that I mention does not fall into this category. It is a story about educational change in the former Soviet Union, focusing on an Oxford Round Table devoted to this issue. I can supply it to you if you do not have access.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete I agree with the Guy. Nomoskedasticity, Academic2007, Academic38 and the extremely transparent "neutrality" of Coldmachine all have personal stake in the issue of Oxford Round Table, it shows because some of these people post apparently to a blog which defames the ORT. I have information regarding the organization that is true, and to some people, may be seem as positive traits. I have gotten shot down, called a 'marketer' and an "insider." All I want to do is highlight the purpose of the ORT, since I know what it is and can cite sources. When more time is spent creating and maintaining a 'controversy' section as opposed to the subject of the article, there is indeed a problem. The above message has soon ridiculous quote about neutrality; I mean, seriously, have you ever read the talk page or seen the history of the article? Well, you probably have since you've never posted before (yeah, right) on the ORT article and decided today to assume a different identify to weigh in on keeping the page. You speak of not deleting articles with unsourced materials, but what about people who are so wrapped you in ridiculousness that they delete cited materials because it didn;t highlight the controversy further; but rather ACTUAL (cited)INFORMATION about the subject. I'm not buying your argument DGG or Nomoskedasticity or Coldmachine or whoever identity you assumed tonight. As you can see, I am frustrated at this non-sense. Best Obscuredata (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)— Obscuredata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please comment on content, not on contributors. (regardless of how you feel about them). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. Let's be clear: 1. I don't have a blog, so how can I be posting to one about the ORT (which, by the way, I don't, but if you have proof then please display it for everyone to see); 2. I came in to the ORT article when the University of Oxford article, which I nominated and worked on to bring it up to GA status, mentioned it and the controversy (I think a link was included or something). I saw the debate, saw the problems, and tried to work towards bringing editors towards a consensus on the changes being made. I posted on ANI requesting help with this. I am extremely offended by your casual throwaway remarks about my involvement being biased; you have no grounds whatsoever for this accusation and I consider this a personal attack. Coldmachine^Talk 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider it a personal attack when I am accused of having a conflict of interest and that was never confirmed. Stop your personal attacks Coldmachine. Thank you. Obscuredata (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Add-On!! Academic38.. Why must you keep talking about the controversy?!?! All I want to do is get accurate information about the organization of it and post it; not one aspect that developed probably 3 or months ago. I have wanted to talk about updating the paper so it contains more information on ORT and you all shot it down as marketing. In Wikipedia terms, is accurate, truthful information marketing? I hope not! As I understand it, the organization has existed for 20 years and the 'controversy' section is longer than the opening paragraph!! You are biased and have something against ORT; I don't believe the article has any validity in its current state and if it continues, it will be nothing more than a power struggle in which all of you gang up on me. How is that productive to Wikipedia and the people that rely on it for information? It's not, and the article should be removed! Obscuredata (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is established when secondary sources report on a topic. As you will see above, I pointed to two such secondary sources, one from 1993 in The Times that discusses an ORT session on education in the former Soviet Union, and one from 2007 in the Times Higher Education that discusses the controversy. FYI, the ORT thread on the Chronicle began in November 2006, and it was only in December 2007 that THE decided it was worth reporting on.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but when truth is compromised, I get frustrated. Obscuredata (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~WP:SPS states that forum postings are not reliable sources.~~ --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Forum postings are not being used as sources - which version of the article did you look at? Pairadox (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I miss-read the URLs. I still think that this article should be deleted as the organisation isn't notable - the only claim to notability is for a single dispute which seems to have been limited to a relatively small audience, and I don't feel that this is enough to meet WP:N --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as a marginally notable corporation. I'm not sure that controversy, by itself, makes a group notable. Take my discussion with a grain of salt, as I was one of the contributors to this article whose edits have been deleted. I attempted to remove the cruft and stubbify it. My actions, ultimately, were not successful. Comment: my understanding of libel law (which I teach, BTW) is that, under NY law, a corporation can not be a plaintiff in a libel case, but I am not certain of FL law (which applies to WP, being incorporated in that state). After a year at WP, this is one of the few times I've been truly conflicted about a discussion. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a content dispute, rather than a a dispute about whether this is a notable subject. Plenty of press articles have been cited which are about people attending, or being invited to, this conference, meaning that reliable sources have recognised this as a notable subject, as well as the Times Educational Supplement article about the controversy. User:Obscuredata, who !voted for an extremely strong delete, said that (s)he had cited information which could go in the article. That this information exists is a demonstration that this is a notable subject which should have an article. Deleting articles because they are controversial would be a breach of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Discussion about content should continue on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had cited information, but because others decided it was 'marketing' and not worthy of being in the article, I guess it does not count; so therefore it must not be notable for Wiki standards. Article should be deleted. Obscuredata (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absoulutely a content dispute, but the reason to delete is not related to that. There is talk of reliable sources that establish notability, but they really don't seem to. If you look at the references in the article the TES one is likely fine for the controversy (moderate for establishing notability), there are a number of primary sources about the company and it's officers (not good for establishing notability), lots from the companies website and related websites (not good for establishing notability), and several from reliable sources about notable people going to the conference (doesn't seem to me that these establish notability of the company/conference). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! The ORT is certainly notable within academic circles. OrionClemens (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — OrionClemens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I was accused of being biased; while I agree that I may be looked upon as that, I can't understand how truth is compromised. If this Wikipedia page is kept, it will be nothing but a power struggle that does not serve the individuals that look to Wikipedia for help or information. Tepid1 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Tepid1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP!!! There are many press articles and college websites that say that faculty members have attended ORT. Many faculty list talks at ORT on their CVs. Most academics receive invitations from ORT to attend their conferences. So it is helpful to have a source of information about ORT on the web. Yes, there's dispute about the academic credibility of ORT, and Wikipedia is no stranger to such controversies. It has its own ways of dealing with those disputes. It looks very much like the proposal to delete the entry comes from people who want to shield ORT from criticism, and so if the entry is deleted, this will be a clear sign that Wikipedia is subject to commercial pressures. The dispute about ORT is all about content and it should continue. --Slintfan (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)— Slintfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE I should probably note I've been listed as a single topic contributor on the Oxford Round Table article talkpage. I have argued ever since the advent of this article that it constitutes a form of attacl page and should be deleted on that account. Though recent edits have lessened that effect of the page, it still seems to me to fail notability guidelines and the talk page clearly illustrates that this article has become a battleground for external ideologies which are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. So please DELETE it and restore the dignity of all parties. (Coligny (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)) — Coligny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE!!!! for sure. Wiki has been duped by the contrivances of anonymous posters, Dr. Stones, LarryC, Untenured et al. and UKProf (Sloan Mahone) all of the Chronicle thread that is devoted to closing down the ORT. A review of the Chronicle thread clearly reveals the conspiracy of these bandits, with malice aforethought. End the thing.Billingsworth (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Billingsworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Very Strong Delete: It should be deleted because the entire site was created to cast calumny on the Oxford Round Table. The anonymous posters daily enter, directly and by implication, scurrilous biased information about the ORT. The incorporation argument pretends that there is something sinister about the ORT, when in fact it is almost a carbon copy of the Wikipedia incorporation in Florida. Drop the whole thing and do a service to everyone.Apprec8coetzee (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Apprec8coetzee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Most of the damage is being done to Wikipedia. All of the 'talk' merely indicated that Wiki is an unreliable source for anyone interested in accurate information. As a result of my following this circus about this entity (The Round Table), I have warned the freshman at my university, where I teach two classes of 200 each, to never cite Wiki for anything. Deletion of articles that minimize information related to a subject and maximize one's personal attacks, may restore a modicum of credibility to Wiki. InformationKey (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — InformationKey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Amazing how the Oxford Round Table creates brand new accounts to vote delete. InformationKey comes to mind. Then, of course, Apprec8coetzee, Billingsworth, Tepid1, and Aristotle13 were all created just when we about to reach consensus on the "controversy" section. They all attacked the consensus; Obscuredata then said he had meant to oppose it and voted for it by mistake. And now all of them (except Aristotle 13, who hasn't posted on this page) vote delete. On the other side, only Slintfan is a new account voting keep.

Notice how none of the ORT posters I've just named has claimed that it isn't notable. Of course, they'll probably all state that now. :-) Academic38 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A suspected sockpuppet report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Billingsworth‎. Pairadox (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia's reliability has been raised again, and trashed again. I teach at a two-year college. I do not allow my students to cite a tertiary source, such as Wikipedia, unless they had exhausted primary and secondary sources. I encourage them to use WP as a first step in the research, or as a quoted synthesis. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. How is the ORT site different from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectBuy? If you look at this DirectBuy page, you'll see that, on one side, you have a company that thinks it has a good business model and offers a valuable service to its customers. On the other side, you have critics that think the company is not straightforward with its offerings, and charges rates that are too high. The edit history and discussion page of the site show much conflict, including legal threats by the company. I don't know if the DirectBuy site was ever proposed for deletion, but it is still posted, providing a useful resourse to anyone who gets a solicitation from that company. Likewise, an ORT article, balanced through the consensus process that was developing on the discussion page, can provide information without being either a puff piece for the company or an attack page for critics. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) — Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP; very few reliable sources are cited in the article. The SPA/sock circus isn't really a reason to delete, but it's sure not helping. If by some mischance the article is kept, it needs serious work; it reads like an advertisement, and there are too many citations to questionable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your views on corporate noteworthiness? ORT hosts about 30 conferences a year, with about 40 participants in each, thereby involving over a thousand people a year. The page cites to many press releases issued by the employers of the invitees, all of which indicates their belief in its noteworthiness. The Times Ed. Supplement found the topic noteworthy, and this journal is within the focus of people that ORT caters to. I certainly understand that Wikipedia may not have the funds or stomach if ORT decides to sue, but can it honestly delete this article on noteworthiness grounds. Finally, I would note that, in its current version, there aren't as many reliable sources as their used to be. I believe this condition can be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases aren't useful sources for establishing notability. What we need is substantial coverage in secondary sources; and I don't see enough in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Press releases can be fine for establishing notability if they are independent of the subject, which, if they are issued by the employers of invitees, they are. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of SPAs involved in this debate is amazing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Akhilleus, plus possible BLP issues. Orderinchaos 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What BLP issues? I can't see any statements in the article about living people which are not supported by reliable sources. And even if there were any such statements they could be removed by editing; deletion wouldn't be required to fix the problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many of the accounts editing this deletion debate (AfD) have been blocked as disruptive single-purpose accounts (SPAs). Some of the accounts were not SPAs, but some do appear to have been created solely for the purpose of editing the article and this AfD. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#Is it just me... and the following subsections (permalink as of time of writing). This may explain why some of the questions to the SPAs go unanswered. And according to User:Krimpet, "#2008012410015146 is the associated OTRS ticket". Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones (involves most of the editors involved in this, and then some more uninvolved ones - there has indeed been sockpuppeting going on here, or at least people editing from the same IP address). Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with no prejudicce for careful recreation) - This article was clearly started to bring an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, and it never really recovered from that. If there needs to be any article at all, it would benefit from a clean start, though not, obviously, by the same editors. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lot of valuable material in what already exists. Pairadox has already created a clean start on the "controversy" section. Guy's initial complaint was that the "corporate history" section included a lot of original research, but it was actually primary sources whose use complies with WP policy on primary sources, i.e., their interpretation is self-evident. Finally, I dispute the view that none of the previous editors are capable of writing from an NPOV. Only one side was sock-puppeting.Academic38 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article creator (User:Drstones, currently blocked) has indicated his latest thoughts here, here and here. I am noting these comments as they may be relevant to the deletion debate. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will admit upfront that I was asked to take a look at this page by someone that has been blocked! After reading all of the information and seeing the page this AfD stemmed from, I don't see how Wikipedia (and its 'administrators') can accept such a page. It is obvious that someone is using Wikipedia to defame an organization. And this whole business of people being blocked because they have 'interest' in the page is obsurd; those are the individuals that should be able to vocalize their opinion (either pro or against deletion). I hope I don't get blocked for stating that Wikipedia should be a bastion of honesty. TwoLove (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From your use of the term "defame," it is obvious that you were contacted by a blocked account from the ORT side. I'd like to point out they were the only ones using sockpuppets. There is nothing false, and hence nothing defamatory, in the article as it currently stands.Academic38 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't very complicated. First, it isn't obvious that this is notable per WP:N. I do not see multiple indepdent, non-trivial reliable sources. There is exactly one linked to in the article, Melanie Newman's piece in the Times Higher Education Supplement. There seem to be mentions according to google news [1] but most seem to be local press announcing that someone has been invited to the ORT. Furthermore, many of the google news hits don't seem to be actually about this institution at all. As per Carcharoth, I don't object to careful recreation that doesn't have the host of problems this has and demonstrates suitable notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreate It seems to me that this has caused quite a debacle. Upon reviewing the article, I have to agree with a couple of JzG's assertions, namely the big problem with the sourcing. Carcharoth has made some great points; this article was clearly started to give ORT a bad name. My opinion, then, would be to delete the article and start entirely from scratch. GlassCobra 05:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is some serious bamboozling going on here. There are thousands of articles on wikipedia on less notable subjects. Proposed deletion here comes from the prospect of legal trouble, not lack of notability. Obviously the editing process needs to be brought under control - but deletion is inappropriate, least of all on grounds of notability, when a web search turns up dozens of news stories. True, they aren't referenced on the article now, but they could be. Some sources aren't available on line, but WP:V refers to secondary sources, not on-line secondary sources. Seems to me that far too many people here are willing to roll over in the face of lawyerly bullying. Get rid of the disruptive accounts and improve an article on an obviously notable subject. 66.84.37.52 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notation - I thank Carcharoth for bringing my thoughts to the table during my block. Those thoughts support deleting the entry, which has become unmanageable and has devolved from my intent to create a stable and objective entry. Should someone desire to create a new entry, feel free, but I suspect the same road will be followed again and again. I am through with this entry and apologize to the community for ever bringing it to the project. Drstones (talk) 15:00, 11 February 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.