Talk:Institute of Welsh Affairs

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Institute of Welsh Affairs

Previously deletion and draftspacing

The article was previously deleted in 2017, nominated by User:Uncle Milty. I recognise the early version of the page was poor and read as thoroughly promotional.

There is quite widespread coverage of the reports and studies of the IWA in a range of reputable, independent sources. I've added citations to Hansard (House of Commons), the HoC Library studies, BBC News, WalesOnline/Western Mail, and The Independent. Quite a lot of their work is given prominence by UK Government, Welsh Government, and they are probably the largest think tank in Wales. For that reason I think it's worth a rewrite. Any contributions from editors who can reduce promotional language would be welcomed. I'll be regularly adding information too. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspacing

@DGG: I was slightly surprised by your decision to unilaterally move this article from mainspace, and would appreciate your response to the below.

I am sure you know it well, but to break down how I interpreted WP:DRAFTIFY policy, the draftify needs to have:


Criteria
Have some merit A. The IWA is more than plausibly notable. It is an organisation with dozens of staff, a six figure budget, a national platform, and reports which have been widely cited for over 20 years in the House of Commons, National Assembly for Wales, UK Government, Welsh Government, BBC, ITV, WalesOnline, Hansard, a number of academic papers, and so on.
Not meet the required standard The article appears to more than qualify as a WP:STUB, and its extensive referencing and depth is far greater than most stubs. It now has 61 references and varied sources as per 1A). It also has start class features including supporting materials, an understandable written format, and in line referencing. The article is not unimportant. As per 1A), it is an organisation who have been cited widely by political figures and bodies of significance. Think tanks are common on Wikipedia, even small organisations such as Acton Society Trust, Jimmy Reid Foundation etc. It is of interest to a number of people, again, as per 1A), many public bodies treat it as a significant think tank I have over 1000+ edits and would not pass as an inexperienced or new editor under WP:DRAFTIFY
Lack active improvement There's clear active improvement as per my extensive work recently There's a clear assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, stated in Talk, edit history, and by the fact I was recreating of the article from AfD
Have a conflict of interest between article and author I appreciate you pointed out the need for Cleanup-PR. However I have rewritten much of the article, I have no conflict of interest. If the tone needs improving, that's not basis alone for moving out of mainspace under WP:DRAFTIFY. Cleanup=PR on a long and developed article is best done through edits or talk discussion, not drafting

I am minded to move the article back into mainspace, and would appreciate it if you would establish specific areas of the article you feel are promotional, as I am more than happy to work on the article further. As a result I do feel that draftifying was unnecessary, and based on what I see under WP:DRAFTIFY the above the article is best improved in mainspace, given its extensive citations and substantiveness of the article

Llemiles (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduction into main space

I contacted the above user for clarification for the reasons for draftifying the article but received no response.

As there have been no other interventions by editors, I have moved the article back into mainspace, on the basis that there is a silent consensus for the article existing in mainspace. No other users voiced the view that this was a stub article, nor indicated it qualified for WP:Draftify.

The article is substantive, lengthy, widely referenced, and independently sourced. If any edits are required, such as to resolve Cleanup-PR, mainspace is the appropriate place for these. Llemiles (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]