Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Institute for Economic Research

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=American Institute for Economic Research}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=American Institute for Economic Research}})

I mentioned it on the talk page of target during an earlier discussion, but I'm proposing a redirect to Great Barrington Declaration#Sponsor as a WP:CONRED.

All the secondary sourcing I could find basically discuss the organisation exclusively in relation to GBD, and despite ample opportunity to add independent sources, their interns have failed to do so and the article was almost exclusively based on misused WP:ABOUTSELF (per 1, and obviously 5) up until JzG's first pass in October 2020, and second pass in February 2021. Now, the 2019 intern probably wasn't paid (unpaid?) enough to care about the orange {{tl|Primary sources}} tag that was on the article since 2013, but I think that's still reasonable, if weak, additional evidence that no such sources exist except in relation to the target. And up until that point it probably should have been WP:DELREASON4'ed in addition to 8.

Out of curiosity (though it wouldn't affect WP:NORG), I did also do a quick check on the influence of its economic work. With a sample size of one, the response I got was negative.

If the Mirowski opinion is sufficiently noteworthy, I guess it could be copied over to the target. Perhaps mention the Atlas Network as well. Otherwise, I think most of the relevant content is already there. Overall, I'm only bringing this here for consensus since I feel this should be dealt with with prejudice. Please leave your thoughts! Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawing due to plausible argument for impact. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Economics, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - they should meet on notability based on thousands of references in reliable sources and profiles such as https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0009156/, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42121305, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/, https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-29/a-right-wing-think-tank-is-behind-the-controversial-great-barrington-declaration-calling-for-covid-19-herd-immunity/. - Indefensible (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• :As mentioned, I am actually a little curious about how often or rarely they might be mentioned in serious economic literature (not especially so though, I only asked one person). If you're making an argument on that basis, could you please provide an estimate of some measure of impact factor with some evidence Indefensible? Of the profiles you linked, as far as I can tell none of them are suitable for establishing notability. I understand Resilience and DeSmog are both group blogs, LOC is a database entry with all the prose sourced to DBPedia which is UGC. While the ProPublica database is useful for collated financial information it is a database with limited transformation of such primary content. Per consensus, MBFC is of limited use on Wikipedia.
• :The subject specific criteria for organisations and companies are a guideline, there are instances where we might consider other factors override them. I'm not convinced this should be one of them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::I do not think they are doing much serious economic research, what they are is more of a political lobbying organization like The Heritage Foundation which produces opinion pieces to sway policy. The fact that they are widely covered shows their notability, it would be good to maintain encyclopedic coverage of them not for publicity but for public knowledge. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, user:Indefensible makes good points, but also a google search shows this think tank at least meets the minimum requirements for notability and I agree it would be, "good to maintain encyclopedic coverage of them not for publicity but for public knowledge."Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• :... Which minimum requirements are you thinking of Iljhgtn? Because I strongly doubt you can write a WP:COPO compliant article without a shred of secondary coverage in RS except in relation to the COVID misinformation. I don't see the "wide coverage" that Indefensible es claiming, so perhaps you're looking at that, in which case can either of you please share something that isn't UGC, a database entry or a group blog? I'm not even asking for three, just one so I don't feel like I'm barking mad will do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::Here are some i found today not already cited or used in the article if you or anyone else wants to add them in the relevant sections:
• ::•[https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0216790D:US#xj4y7vzkg]https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0216790D:US#xj4y7vzkg
• ::•[https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0009156/]https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0009156/
• ::•[https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/organisers-of-anti-lockdown-declaration-have-track-record-of-promoting-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/]https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/organisers-of-anti-lockdown-declaration-have-track-record-of-promoting-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/
• ::•[https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/]https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/ Iljhgtn (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::Iljhgtn, the first two you've posted are database entries. They would not be usable even if they weren't like the LOC entry, "retrieved from dbpedia", a user generated source (as mentioned above). The LSE article supports that coverage should be at Great Barrington Declaration § Sponsor per WP:NOPAGE, and it's an editorial, not really a secondary source. And as mentioned above, DeSmog is a group blog. The "relevant section" for these sources to be added to is Great Barrington Declaration § Sponsor, that's why I'm here for a redirect. None of the sources that exist show, even at first glance, significant coverage under our criteria for companies and organisation, which is generally required, and neither of you are giving reasons why we should ignore this requirement, when it's perfectly appropriate for an organisation who has only received coverage because of said declaration to be covered at that declaration. Of the four, the LSE article is the only one that {{tq|isn't UGC, a database entry or a group blog}}. If you think we should confirm this analysis, I'm willing to list this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you have specific disputes about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Indefensible. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, though i am not sure if i need to say so again for a new AfD? if i spoke up in an earlier afd is that still "counted" in the final review by the reviewing admin? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• :This isn't a new AFD Iljhgtn, it's still the same one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - gscholar lists thousands of citations of AIER publications. This means AIER meets WP:JOURNALCRIT for its publications alone. I'll mention a few here, as a sampler, as time allows:
  • (1) Academic book citing an AIER article as a reference, and I only cite the first AIER citation in a content chapter; actually, both the book editors and other researchers in other chapters of the same book also cite AIER. The cited paper is cited by [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&hl=en&as_sdt=5,43&sciodt=0,43&cites=9421097909864745981&scipsc= 39 gscholar articles].
  {{cite book |author1=Sinclair Davidson |author2=Jason Potts |editor1-last=Karl Wennberg |editor2-last=Christian Sandström |title=Questioning the Entrepreneurial StateStatus-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy |date=2022 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-94272-4 |page=22, 36 |url=https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/54427 |access-date=28 October 2023 |language=en |chapter=The Entrepreneurial State and the Platform Economy |quote=We do not intend to provide a critique of her original contribution (see McCloskey & Mingardi,2020) [...] McCloskey, D., & Mingardi, A. (2020). The myth of the entrepreneurial state. American Institute for Economic Research}}
  • (2) Natural Hazards Review, a pubblication of the American Society of Civil Engineers, cites the AIER article "Pressman, S. 2015. Defining and measuring the middle class. Great Barrington, MA: American Institute of Economic Research." in its 2022 article "[https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000552 Integrating Household Decisions in Quantifying the Seismic Resilience of Communities Subjected to a Sequence of Earthquakes]". In total, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=5,43&sciodt=0,43&cites=2921956998748474435&scipsc= 52 books and articles cite this one AIER article].
  • (3) WP:NMEDIA "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" is met because publications such as The Wall Street Journal commonly cite AIER. For example: {{cite news |author1=AnnaMaria Andriotis |title=Five Cities for the Career-Minded Student |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703859204575525762416440020?page=1 |access-date=28 October 2023 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=1 October 2010 |quote=The top 15 small cities in the American Institute for Economic Research's 2010-11 College Destinations Index had an average unemployment rate of 7.5% in 2009}}
  • (4) Ditto Los Angeles Times:{{cite news |title=Earlier start is sought for Fed program |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-may-08-fi-wrap8.s1-story.html |access-date=28 October 2023 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=8 May 2008|quote="It would have the effect of putting a floor under the federal funds rate," said Walker Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass.}}

XavierItzm (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:That works for me, I'll withdraw. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.