Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO)

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 No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO)

Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per G11 (spam). While there are indeed some pov/advertorial issues, I'm not sure they are enough to warrant speedy deletion. Note that the article was probably written by the subject, judging from the points raised on the talk page. Also note that "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" doesn't get a single hit on Google and on Google News. Because of all these issues, I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletions and in the list of Politics-related deletions. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I beg to differ with you. When you type "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" into Google there are seven entries. The ISCO directorate and its director are also both mentioned by name in the Wikipedia entry for Intellipedia. Every effort is being made to write the article in a non Point of View/advertorial way. It is what it is: an office within the US federal government that deals with approximately 100,000 federal employees conducting the work of the sharing information across the intelligence community.--Tom 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I see where the different results come from. "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" gets no hits, "Information sharing and customer outreach" gets eight. Perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment I just made two similar articles (Program Manager Information Sharing Environment and Information Sharing Council). This article is related to it. I didn't start this article. I didn't even know that it existed until I started browsing the afd's. I think that the page should be named Information Sharing Customer Outreach without the trailing acronym. The reason that there are few hits on google is because this office is brand new. The PM ISE was just established in March. I am debating creating a new Information Sharing Customer Outreach article, and filling it with the information in this article. This one here looks like it needs a lot of work. While I was adding the "See Also" links to it, I got a chance to look at it, and there are a lot of <br/>'s to remove. A couple of "section citations" too. It's getting to my bedtime now, so I can't do anything about this at the moment. Umeboshi 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Google is refreshed so often that I don't believe that the fact that there are few google hits is related to the office having been established only in March. That's nine months ago. Surely a organisation of the US federal government should be able to acquire some more google hits in nine months time. That doesn't mean that the organisation is non-notable though, google is not a measure of notability. I can't tell whether ISCO is notable atm. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Instead of googling for "Information Sharing Customer Outreach", try "Information Sharing" "Customer Outreach". I got 481 links, with many on the first page referring to the DNI. This department is covered in the implemetation plan of the PM ISE here. Umeboshi 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In view of the google queries provided above, I have struck that part of the nom. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Gov't org. Probably has reasonable expectations of being notable. TonyTheTiger 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know whether ISCO is notable enough to merit its own article, but if we are going to keep this, I'd suggest we at least rename it to Information Sharing and Customer Outreach. The article is kind of confusing though...is this a separate entity or part of a larger organization (such as the DNI)? Gzkn 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are part of the ODNI. I have already proposed a move (see my comment above). I am going to propose that on the articles talk page. On second thought, after reading WP:RM, I'll go ahead and move it myself. I doubt moving it will raise any dispute, and the redirect will be there anyway. Umeboshi 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the name should be changed to Information Sharing and Customer Outreach to make it more clear. It is a part of the DNI but like the PM ISE, the Information Sharing Council, and many other components of the DNI which have their own stub or article it is notable and deserves its own entry.

From General Meyyerose's speech today to AFCEA (18 DEC 24 FEB 06)- We in fact have a Senior Executive whose title is the Deputy Associate Director of National Intelligence for Information Sharing and Customer Outreach. And notice that it doesn't say anything about the intelligence community because we have customer outreach and information sharing responsibilities across the entire government, and that's an important thing to realize.

--Tom 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion

• I just read the following wikipedia advice on deletions that I believe applies in this case: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." This article has clearly evolved from its original state and substantial additions and improvements have been made since it was nominated for deletion. It will continue to improve unless of course it is deleted.

--Tom 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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.