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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure[edit]

Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Advocacy group doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle, I'm still working on adding to the page, but seemed worth noting here that the org is a think tank and advocacy group. It has the sort of sources covering it that you'd expect for a think tank - Politico, other think tank work, academic reports - and the org is led by former federal agency executives. I'll be replying on my talk page as well. Thanks! OrgTracker (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am confident in the notability of the organization, because I've seen it in policy reports and places that don't generally get google hits (e.g. report footnotes). I also mentioned this on my talk page, but while researching for this page, there were many sources. I then found on the org's own page that they catalog hundreds of independent sources (https://www.aii.org/in-the-media/). I didn't cite the org's own page to support notability in the wikipedia article, but I'm posting here so other editors and admin can weigh that in discussion. OrgTracker (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this organization popping up as op-eds on various sites, mentions of the founder being quoted here and there, but I don't see any distinct reporting on the organization itself. With no secondary sources providing any significant references to the organization itself, it does not pass WP:NORG. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Tony Fox, I spent some time looking backwards and when the org launched it had some things on the org (here and here). After that, they just do the work a think tank does - which includes writing lots of papers and opeds and being quoted around. I'm not sure I'd expect contemporary stuff writing up about the org, rather than just quoting their people or mentioning their work. There are a number of places mentioning when they have new reports: Houston Chronicle, Washington Examiner, Politico, etc. I'm still researching more, but keep seeing it in DC literature.

  Does your bolded word "Delete" mean a final decision, or just your input on the discussion that is still open? OrgTracker (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Washington Examiner one just did a wiki link. This was what I was referencing (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/a-rail-company-thinks-federal-regulators-are-holding-up-new-safety-measures). Which goes to why I think this org is notable - other media outlets treat it like it is. They don't seem to have a need to explain who the org is, they just cite it or its people. I'll look for more. OrgTracker (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some give an intro into the org: http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/1707national_infrastructure_group_takes_interest

  Others summarize reports: https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/article/16801739/study-examines-ban-on-development-offshore-the-arctic

  Or characterize their reports: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1060049913

  I get the importance of notability, but as someone who studies public policy, it's difficult for me to see why this org is not. And after researching for the page, I know there are many different types of sources. Some as you mentioned are their own opeds, quotes from their founder, report summaries, quotes from staff, citations to their work, footnotes to research, etc. OrgTracker (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:ORGCRIT to understand the issue here - this organization has not been covered in any multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I receive materials from these organizations multiple times daily - their MO is to place papers and op-eds in sympathetic media outlets, put out press releases that are occasionally picked up by news outlets, etc. None of the sources that have been provided, and none that I can find, provide independent coverage of the actual organization. Thus, it does not meet the necessary guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tony Fox I understand where you are coming from and how the guidelines present a challenge. As it stands, and as the author of the page, is there a way to keep it as a draft to potentially republish down the line? I'd rather keep a google alert for this org and potentially republish the draft than lose hours of research. OrgTracker (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd suggest that you let this discussion play out; it generally runs for about a week, and an administrator will decide at the end whether the article is deleted or retained. You can leave your own policy-based opinion just as any other editor would, and in that request that the closing admin consider draftifying rather than deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just putting some additional thoughts as this discussion continues: I understand that no org is inherently notable and still has to meet the guidelines, but when I initially found this org cited around and looked into it, the fact that is is led by people who used to lead federal agencies (PHMSA, NTSB) stood out. And just thinking about your point, Tony Fox, that these orgs send releases to sympathetic media, when I scrolled down the organization's media catalog, it seems difficult to think all those are friendly, because they cited the org's reports and treated it as notable (CNN, Politico, Reuters, ABC, FOX, CBS, etc). I've tried to click through as many of them on their page as I can and many are just a quote from the founder or staff, but many also seem to include a few lines or discuss report findings. I'll go back to researching for some other pages I'm interested in and will work all this feedback into my future efforts. But I'd still defend this one. OrgTracker (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks independent sources. Andrevan@ 00:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still doing some light research for this page and came across this, which is definitely independent of the org, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/3/3/2019061/-Gas-Pipelines-Are-A-Cure-For-Poverty-Says-OpEd-By-Gas-Pipeline-Proponent-In-RealClearEnergy OrgTracker (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not delete, but only because I am aware of this group involved in the damage prevention sector. Not sure about notability guidelines on here. DPpro (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2022 (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.