Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Keith J. Krach as a viable ATD. While there is not currently consensus to merge, the history remains should that eventuate. Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Previously soft-deleted, recreation was requested by the same editor, who has stated on their user page that their sole goal here on Wikipedia is to write an article on this topic, and has made no further improvements since restoration to the state of the last AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a lot of sources, but I agree with the relatively strict WP:ORGCRITE. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Keith J. Krach, who appears to have founded this institute and serves as its chairman. There's some coverage here from independent sources, though I'm a bit doubtful as to whether this passes WP:NGO on its own. But merging it into the article on Krach (perhaps as a standalone section) seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as promotional It needs cleanup and many of the sources are weak, not independent, or about Keith Krach - but these three sources are fairly convincing: [1][2][3] . We could just end up back here each time a new article is published. I would support speedy deletion for outright promotion based on Rosguill's link to the article creator's own statement on his user talk page, and the poor quality of the article. Ben Azura (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't establish notability, they're press releases. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't understand why the deletion of this page is so important. I believe all the people here are well versed in Wikipedia and they can fix the page to help the readers and the Wikipedia community. I created this page to help people I don't know why its being portrayed like I committed some type of sin. I only tried to create a full informative page and why would I promote anything and what benefit I can get from it? I read and researched extensively about Wikipedia guidelines and tutorials then finalized the content, so I guess you can help by editing the page because I know it contains a lot of reliable sources and the subject is notable not sure why its being denied as something that is not notable, I feel maybe de to political aspect or I'm not sure. TBH I'm pretty disappointed at the moment.... Not a single person is interested in editing the page and fixing it to the level they think is fine... Anyway, I respect opinions and I won't mind the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickingtime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I read WP:ORGRITE the primary criteria already verifies its notability but I'll leave it maybe I'm knocking at the wrong door. Tickingtime (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to actually identify any, let alone multiple, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The currently-cited sources have been dismissed as a combination of press releases and mere mentions in more reliable sources that do not include significant coverage of the subject; you can present a counter argument, but you need to make reference to actual, specific sources and make the case for their independence, depth and reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 11 February 2024 (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.