Deletion of Institute for the Study of International Development

Comment: Google Books, Google News and Scholar provide nothing relevant.  It doesn't matter if Joe Clark taught a class there or availed himself of the toilet facilities, because of .  All of the other mentions in sources are brief and passing.  The sources are not actually ''about'' the institute.  In fact, if you look at the sources, you'll see that they pretty much suck--just a hodgepodge of brief mentions, irrelevant name-dropping, bloggy onanism, and primary sludge.  It's really awful.  The paid editor who threw this dreck together in fifteen minutes and then charged $225 for it should give his client a refund.  You can always tell when you're reading an article by this guy, because the articles are similar in section-heading style, there are needless extra sections to make the subject look more important, the sections are brief and insubstantial, the articles deal in endless trivialities, and the sourcing either doesn't match the text '''''at all''''' or it's extremely, extremely tangential, as is the case with this article.  The Wikipedia community has roundly rejected this kind of "article manufacture," as though the articles were nothing more than cheap knock-offs produced in a factory, and the proof is in the rapid and thorough deletions of this editor's subpar work, of which I count at least nine deleted examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_R._Carvalko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mirametrix_Research#Mirametrix_Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Hennessey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tandemlaunch_Technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Officeautopilot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cuba_at_a_Cross_Roads_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_Obama_Will_Win_in_2008_%26_2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LightManufacturing_LLC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_National_Innovation_Brokers.  (And guess who is often the solitary keep vote in the AfDs?  That's right, Mr. Paid Spam himself.)  This is the famous "sock'n'schlock" editing style, whereby multiple socks are used to mass produce similarly lousy articles in quick time, with false representations made to the "clients," and the Wikipedia community temporarily fooled into believing that the editor is a disinterested volunteer who wants to build an encyclopedia, rather than a person working secretly and under the table, who wants to cheat non-notable people and institutions as he lines his pockets with editing fees, "article assurance" fees, "article maintenance" fees, and monitoring fees.  According to the  policy, it's legitimate to be a paid advocate if you do it in an upfront manner and follow all wiki policies in creating articles.  That is not what happened with this secretly produced article, nor with any of the other articles the guy has spammed us with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOPAY)