Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Legislative Analysis

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. Owen× ☎ 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis

[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:NCORP, coverage in RS is limited to mere-mentions of its existence. FOX News has a substantial writeup [1], but I don't think they can be considered reliable for this topic. The fact that syndicated local news have seen fit to effectively reprint their press releases (e.g. [2], [3]) does not inspire further confidence. I'd want to see actual analysis of the group's history and work in multiple national-level publications (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post) to substantiate NCORP here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't write an article without basing it off WP:ORGIND sources (what we get if we do that is called "an ad"), which as far as I can tell, does not exist. May be WP:TOOSOON. Maybe redirect but honestly I'm inclined for a delete and redirect even if a suitable target (maybe the org it spun off of) was made (due to the current article being an ad). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking about redirecting to American Conservative Union, but ILA is not mentioned at that article and it's not entirely clear that there's actually an intentional connection between the organizations or if ILA's founding group just happens to be ACU alumni. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed the press and added some more prominent articles as well as criticisms in the media. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a whole bunch of sources, including ones that seem largely irrelevant to determining NCORP, like declarations from Congresspeople's offices celebrating that ILA rated them highly (e.g. [4]). Could you identify 2-3 sources you think make the case? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree those sources should be removed. When searching ILA it seems they have been covered by the Washington Examiner a few times and Fox News. Also looks like their CEO made it into the Washingtonian top 500 most influential people in DC as a result of Nikki Haley's usage of the ILA report for her campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2453025/nikki-haley-tops-limited-government-score-card/

https://californiaglobe.com/fl/new-study-reveals-big-divides-between-governors-desantis-newsom-on-individual-liberties-etc/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-card-shows-youngkin-a-match-for-centrist-virginia/ar-AA1iUdvv?domshim=1

https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/05/02/washington-dcs-500-most-influential-people-of-2024/

https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They get a lot of state level press on both sides of the political isle – Idaho Democratic party put out a press release

https://idahodems.org/idp-statement-on-new-idaho-gop-platform-rating-site/

Major conservative media outlets right about them as well – here is also a Newsmax article:

https://www.newsmax.com/murdock/capitol-gop-maga/2023/06/09/id/1122985/ SamwiseTarly (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces are not considered RS, and I'm yet to see anything that meets the requirements for intellectual independence (WP:ORGIND). Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that those sites that appear to have rerun their press releases don't meet intellectual independence and should be corrected. But when I was doing some research into some conservative advocacy stuff going on in the states ILA definitely popped up quite a bit. I would say the multiple pieces on them by the Washington Examiner and California Globe meets the mark. It also appears their reports were pretty heavily utilized by Nikki Haley on the presidential campaign and is even documented in the American Presidency Project - https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/haley-campaign-press-release-nikki-haley-tops-limited-government-score-card. Will work on cleaning up that other bad source material. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 18:47, 16 May 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.