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 no consensus. Time to put this one out of it's misery, as it's clear that no agreement will be reached on the notability of the organisation. This does not preclude heavy editing of the article to remove promotional language and make it more neutral in tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for the institute No third party references. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The institute for governance of Private and Public Organizations is a Canadian Think Thank, a nonprofit organization. They do not sell any products. This organization and wikipedia page are similar as Rockefeller Institute of Government, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, Art Institute of Pittsburgh, C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich or Royal Canadian Institute, etc. Moreover, the page could be improved. Fell free to add any third party references or others information to this page. Zadig Zian (talk) 13:45 13 march 2015 (UTC)

"Promotion" does not require the active sale of commercial products — it is entirely possible, indeed remarkably easy, to write a promotionally-toned article about a non-profit organization. Think about the distinction between "encyclopedia article about an organization" and "public relations profile of an organization" if you still don't understand how it's possible for a "non-commercial" provider of services to be written about in a promotional manner. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, promotion is a lot less of a concern for a nonprofit, in my opinion. Any too-promotional tone can and should be addressed by normal editing, perwp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --doncram 15:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment At WP, "promotion" applies to non-profit organizations, and to ideas, as well as to commercial organizations. (And they do sell their own publications) When you compare the article in question to some of the most famous institutes in the world, it tends to indicate a lack of judgment typical of promotional writing. I agree some of those articles could be better sourced. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that these institutes are most famous than institute for governance of Private and Public Organizations. I think that it is also tends to indicate a lack of judgment for you about the institute for governance. Do you read article ? Do you make some research about management ? Yvan Allaire was VP at Bombardier and Michel Nadeau was VP at Caisse de dépôt et placements du Québec. Moreover, Yvan Allaire was president of the Global Agenda Council on the Role of Business at the Word Economic Forum. Do you always think that is not enought famous ? I could understand your point about "promotion" but the institute for governance deserve a wikipedia page. Zadig Zian (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing it's important for you to realize is that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the organization ever having a Wikipedia article — it's just a question of whether this version of the article is appropriate for inclusion or not. Even if this gets deleted, you do still have the right to try again if you're willing to put the time into writing and sourcing a better version. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The New York Times found their studies legit enough to feature (here), and it looks like quite a few other reputable publications have done the same thing. Page just needs some work. Earflaps (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That NYT column is a perfect example of a WP:TRIVIALMENTION with a single quoted line yoinked and pasted into the thirteenth paragraph of an article whose topic is not the subject. Pax 05:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a completely promotional violation of our WP:NOTADVERT rules. The organization probably would qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but this article as written is neither of those things. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, with no objection to sandboxing it in userspace or draftspace to allow improvement — but just because it's possible to write a better article about the group doesn't mean that they're entitled to keep this version as an interim measure pending future improvement that isn't actively happening. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when a properly encyclopedic version can be written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The one keep !vote produced a source that would only be useful if this was a discussion about the notability of the study, not the institution. If it were an in-depth article about the institution that would be different. Other than that I don't see there being a strong assertion to notability and have some very serious WP:SPAM concerns. Mkdw^talk 07:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before this gets closed as snow, I'd like to place a provisional !vote to keep based on 3rd-party sources. The article already lists at least three – Globe and Mail, La Presse, and Harvard Law School Forum. And the organization's website lists more here, seven pages of press coverage in French. A cursory looks indicates that many of them are in-depth discussions written by economic journalists and legal scholars. The corresponding English page has three pages of coverage. I haven't got time to do it right now, but I think it's rare for it to be this easy to find multiple RS sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a publisher and a thinktank, involved in important issues and being cited, having an impact. Suggestion above that deletion now is not deletion permanently is not helpful. If it is notable (which it is IMO) it should be kept. The article can be tagged for improvement. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.--doncram 05:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Two completely unsourced sections, most references are apparently self-published, and nothing in your "thinktank, involved in important issues and being cited, having an impact" rationale is demonstrated by reliable third party sources. In essence the page consists of four lists of unclear items organized as four sections. The categories recently added by you are now the best part of the page by a broad margin. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be..anyone, I removed leading "!vote" in that as you !voted further above already, hope that's okay. It's okay to Comment more than once but not to !vote, in AFDs. --doncram 15:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is always and exclusively dependent on the volume of reliable source coverage that can actually be shown to exist — ideally it would be in the "as written" version of the article, but it's (unfortunately) considered acceptable just to show the existence of such sourcing in the AFD discussion as well even if the article never actually gets improved. But either way, notability is not conferred until RS coverage is actually shown — it is not enough to merely claim that such sourcing exists, or that one believes it might exist, and no claim of notability ever confers an automatic "just because claim" keep if nobody explicitly shows the existence of that RS coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources. The first four are reactions to the series of papers about activist hedge funds. Some of the Harvard Law Forum articles are shorter versions of articles that appeared elsewhere.

• [1] Engagement and Activism in the 2015 Proxy Season — The Harvard Law School Forum
• [2] The State of Corporate Governance for 2015 — The Harvard Law School Forum
• [3] The Threat to Shareholders and the Economy from Activist Hedge Funds — The Harvard Law School Forum
• [4] L’action des actionnaires activistes est déstabilisante | Le Devoir
• [5] Piketty, Allaire et les gros salaires | La Presse | Francis Vailles
• [6] Should shareholders rule? Yes, it’s the law | Financial Post
• [7] No supervision of proxy advisory firms | Financial Post

In this particular field, I think it has gained a lot of attention. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The IGOPP topic is important in Canada, which has a separate U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(?)-equivalent for each province that has a stock exchange (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia). American and British and other editors participating in this AFD are probably not familiar at all with the setting, and "Delete" views broadly due to their/our unawareness should be discounted; we should avoid U.S.- & U.K.- centrism.

The relevance of the 6th of the Margin1522-provided sources above, "Should shareholders rule? Yes, it’s the law", an op-ed in the Financial Post dated May 14, 2014 puzzled me because it doesn't mention IGOPP. I figure out eventually that the op-ed author Philip Anisman is responding to, and commenting on the views of Yvon Allaire, who is apparently known to FP readers already as representing IGOPP. Affaire's affiliation with IGOPP is given in Allaire's May 13 op-ed one day later earlier (May 13), which identifies him as "Executive chair, IGOPP": "Should shareholders rule? No, let boards decide". I also later figure Anisman's role: "Philip Anisman, a Toronto securities lawyer, is the author of Takeover Bid Legislation in Canada: A Comparative Analysis (1974) and Poison Pills: The Canadian Experience (2000)".

Allaire's May 14 response cites previous back-and-forth between the two: Allaire's April 30th op-ed "Counterpoint: Canada needs a new regime for hostile takeovers" and May 6th Anismen response: Takeover bids provide the most effective means by which a potential acquirer can go directly to a target corporation’s shareholders" and Anisen's May 6 reply "Takeover bids provide the most effective means by which a potential acquirer can go directly to a target corporation’s shareholders". All of these are "specials" of Canada's Financial Post. The Financial Post, per its Wikipedia article, plays a role similar to the Report on Business of The Globe and Mail (Toronto-based, Canada's biggest circulation newspaper, and I speculate these might be like the Wall Street Journal and maybe the Financial Times' coverage in the U.S.).

In Canada, apparently, Yvon Affaire and the IGOPP are known and out in the public (in the news, in forums, etc.) arguing for better corporate governance in Canada. IGOPP wants for the regulating bodies (Ontario Securities Commission, British Columbia Securities Commission, Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec's "market watchdog" the "Autorité des marchés financiers" led by Louis Morriset, other government-associated or stock exchange-associated or investor interest/lobbying groups) to adopt rule changes or to join IGOPP in pressing for rule changes, or to enforce existing rules more or differently. Presumably IGOPP wants changesn ways that would help improve corporate governance (affect "corporate managers’ potential conflict of interest", affect takeover likelihood, revise rules on poison pills, affect likelihood of corporate takeovers attempts being tried and succeeding or not, etc.) Apparently, it is IGOPP's role, in Canada, to survey & study practices and to argue for "good" corporate governance rule changes that the U.S. financial system (SEC, accounting standards board, New York Stock Exchange, others) has required. On the disclosure side these U.S. changes have included requirements for disclosure of corp. board members' pay, affiliations/COI, credentials/experience, insider vs. outsider status, more). On the behavior rules, the U.S. changes included requirements about corporate takeovers, minority shareholder rights, accounting standards, and more. Anisen and Morriset and others are debating with Allaire & IGOPP. The opinions/papers by all of these cite IGOPP's studies/white papers, academic papers about U.S. corporate governance issues, and more academic & other works that exist & would be useful sources for development in this area.

IGOPP is playing an important role as an advocate and a source on corp. gov. in Canada with impacts elsewhere, in part evidenced by it being cited in the U.S. academic forums. Its goals (what it thinks is "good"), its incentives (how it is funded, etc.) and role relative to other players's roles should be covered in the IGOPP article. All of the Canadian and U.S. players on corporate governance and much about the general issues they debate about should/could be covered in Wikipedia, and Canada's circumstances & issues should be reflected more in corporate governance-related articles in Wikipedia, and I for one am interested in helping develop articles in this area (as I am guessing Ottawahitech might be, also). I would use news articles and academic papers cited and more. I reaffirm my Keep !vote above. --doncram 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Off Topic comment I am late to this party (as usual) but I would like to appeal to those who are itching to close this discussion tlo at least wait until more

• Canadian editors
• Editors who are interested in business

weigh in. The Canada and Business wikiproject banners were only added to the article's talk page on March 22, so if we are really interested in a broad discussion to achieve consensus we have to give it more time.

I would like to add that many articles in Category:Canada have existed for years with no references whatsoever, while others with some, but apparently not enough, refs have been deleted, I believe user:JForget (insert instead User:JOttawa16 Ottawahitech (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)) authored some. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC) For example this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is another ref: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/22/canadian-companies-urged-to-end-stock-option-rewards/ Ottawahitech (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You're near to the point where I'd think that Yvan Allaire is more notable than the article. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (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.