Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Council on Good Governance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The page Oxford Council on Good Governance survived VfD. Below is the archive of the discussion. Please do not edit this page. Use Talk:Oxford Council on Good Governance for further comments.



Promo. Website disclaimer: "We are not affiliated with or sponsored by the University of Oxford, the Oxfordshire County Council, or the Oxford City Council". Anonymous editor has salted other articles with links to oxfordgovernance.org. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If three Nobel Peace Laureates and five European Commissioners really work with them, they clearly have some clout - perhaps worthy of a mention? - XmX
"XmX" above used 62.49.1.106 (demon.co.uk). This is not the only appearance of this IP number in relation to recent discussion about this spate of new, mutually supportive articles. Hoary 08:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • With such distinguished cow-orkers, their works may qualify them for an article some day real soon. This is not that day.-- GWO
  • Keep: I actually think that there's nothing wrong with an article on a think-tank, even a new one, though the boosterism of the crosslinks is aggravating. I understand that it's a non-affiliated organization, but if the claims are verifiable about membership, I don't see this being as close to the ranks of DEViANCE, for example, or Something Awful. I will always favor real life over fictions when it comes to questions of notability and encyclopedic content. Geogre 20:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Faint praise indeed. The indulgence of Wikipedia toward explicating every aspect of the utterly unremarkable "Something Awful" continues to surprise me. Hoary 08:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Interesting to me is that a number of folks, like me, apply a pretty strict standard to articles. We're relatively consistent in that. Other people have interests in pop culture and have a pretty liberal view about what should be in. When a subject like this think-tank comes up, the strict folks (normally this includes me) will vote for a delete, but the people who are in favor of minor characters in fictions (so long as they're on the Internet or TV) and Internet-only groups (and newsgroup lore) don't show up to vote. (sigh) We ought to either have strict standards on academic and pop culture or Everything2 standards for both. I think that I'm consistent between the groups, and the misbehavior of the boosters of this group shouldn't persuade us to vote delete, if the organization is verifiable. Geogre 16:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 23:05, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean for POV. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:14, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but make as NPOV as possible Lumos3 09:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -notability first, entry later --Calton 12:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • I guess I do not have a vote in this rather kafkaesque decision process, but since I wrote the article in the first place, I would like to explain to you why. The OCGG is the only independent, international, and professional think tank in the world that is run solely by young people. Given that it is the only of its kind, I think it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia. It is also one of very few entirely non-partisan think tanks that produces consistently actionable advice. Since non-partisan actionable advice is very rare, it provides a valuable public service that people should know about. As regards your criterion of notability, its highly distinguished board of advisors as well as its track record of presenting analysis and advice to high-level policy-makers both in America and Europe should suffice.
    • Your enthusiasm (and indeed, success to date) is admirable; your rhetoric is not. "one of very few entirely non-partisan think tanks that produces consistently actionable advice"? Come on. I'll vote to keep this article, although not the one on its journal or on its members. This is one that should be watched closely for NPOV; for a start, it could stand to lose a couple references to "high-level policy makers." -leigh 12:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thinktanks tend to be encyclopaeic; this one imo is. As normal, remove any hubris from the article. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Okay, that takes chutzpah - User 163.1.81.147 (author of the article) edited the article on Oxford, and under external links REPLACED Oxford Union with a link to this article. This shameless self-promotion has a bad odor about it. --Calton 04:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but keep a tight watch on them. So far nothing is said that they and their journal are nothing but a bunch of high-profile spammers who "hand" their unasked-for recommendations to anyone who happens to go out to shake hands to voters. I'd love to see the opinion of Tony Blair on their recommendations they claim to hand to him "in a face to face meeting". Mikkalai 19:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note to anonymous adherents of "good governance". Persistent restoration of pages deleted after voting is not good governance after all, since you may get yourself permanently blocked from editing wikipedia. Also, I am curious whether learning the "rules of the game" before joining is among the principles of good governance. Mikkalai 20:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • A note to "Wiki-dictators". I quote from your own deletion policy: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!". I am not sure who has not learnt the rules of the game here... ;o) It seems like quite a few of you Wiki-guys have invested a disproportionate amount of time in deleting whatever the good governance people have put up. I am not one of them - I am sorry to disappoint you all here - I have just been partly amused and partly annoyed by observing the way in which this has evolved. Although I admire a lot of the janitorial work you Wiki-guys are doing in order to provide a great online encyclopedia, I have to say that I think you fail on the merits of this particular case. Lots of people in different countries have been expanding and developing the various articles in question - but I guess you all have been to busy deleting to take any notice of this. Please spend your valuable time where it is more needed and give the good governance people a break to show what they are good for. Yours, Robin Hood.
Thanks for kind words towards wikipedia. And thank you for reminding us the policy. In this particular case my guideline is "If in doubt... don't delete!" The good governance thingy is that in the course of time I have less and less doubt that the contributors are just a bunch of stubborn guys, not necessarily related to the organisation in question. Wikipedia has some history of dealing with both reasonable and unreasonable people. And we also have our share of being both amused and annoyed. Have fun, green man. Mikkalai 23:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also thank the green man. There is clearly a need to update the deletion policy to be more accurate, so that it says "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this may be seen as evidence for the need for an article, or it may just mean that someone is stubborn and thinks the rules do not apply to them." I'm fairly sure those who framed the deletion policy were referring to cases where several different people independently have the idea that an article on a subject is needed and contribute an article on that subject, not the case where someone is aware that the article was voted on and deleted by consensus but thinks themselves too good to obey the rules and restores exactly the same text that was deleted by community consensus. (Hint: I don't know in what world that represents "good governance".) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, you may think there is a need to change the policy, that's fine, but the policy AS IT STANDS AT PRESENT says: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." If you dont't like this, then start a process to change it - until then, please follow the rules!!! Anne, Univ
  • I agree with Robin Hood. You should let these articles stay. Marie S. (I made a comment here earlier but that has been removed - why?)
    • Voting shows that this article will stay, don't worry Marie (, if you really are S.). The only thing is that it will not be allowed to say that they are the best. Mikkalai 23:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure you must be thinking of a comment you made on a different Votes for Deletion page, Marie. I've checked through the whole edit history and your comment today agreeing with Robin Hood is the only edit made from an IP address that's signed "Marie S." If you're sure it was this page, please locate it in the edit history and tell us the time of the edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep all the articles! Peter, Oxford
  • This story is moving quickly around Oxford, very interesting indeed - who do you Wiki people think you are??? Why this urge to delete everything about Oxford??? We all want to keep all of these articles. ALL OF THEM!!!
  • Keep 'em all. Suzie. OX
  • Keep all the articles relating to the OCGG! Mark, Yale/Oxford
  • Keep all the articles. Anne, Univ
  • Keep all the articles - John, Wadh.
  • Keep both this and the separate article about the journal. Given all the crap in this encyclopedia, I am surprised at the vengeance with which some of the Wiki-dictators go after quality content. If the Wiki-dictators could be so graciously benevolent as to unblock the 'Oxford Journal on Good Governance' title, it could even get an appropriate name. If not, I support those who keep posting it under new names.
  • Keep, but watch closely for NPOV. Carter 17:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep' and stop changing / deleting these articles. - XmX

The page Oxford Council on Good Governance survived VfD. Above is the archive of the discussion. Please do not edit this page. Use Talk:Oxford Council on Good Governance for further comments.