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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG: is not "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] reliable, and independent of the subject." Article is sourced to the topic's own website, single sentence bare mentions (which WP:NOTE describes as "plainly trivial" coverage), anonymously-authored pieces promoting FI courses and/or mentions by affiliated persons/organisations. Sources to date are:

Faraday website

• [1][2][3][4]

Bare/no mentions

• [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] (Most of which simply repeat the point that Denis Alexander is the FI's director)

Affiliated

• [20] (McGrath is on the FI's Advisory Board)

Promotional

• [21][22] (the latter isn't in the article, but has been discussed multiple times on article talk)

  Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would accept merge to to St Edmund's College, Cambridge, per RayAYang, as an alternative to deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re the title of the collapsed section below, the "nom" has repeatedly stated that such questions belong on afd-talk. They have been answered there. The "nom" does not wish the answers to be reproduced here, and refuses to answer any follow-up questions that are not made on talk where they belong. Epeefleche's "hope" is therefore plainly stillborn. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Custom on Wikipedia is that, until a separate institute garners sufficient history and notability to support its own article, we merge to the appropriate article within their University (otherwise we'd be buried under articles about various departments, institutes, centers, and other administrative subdivisions inside Universities). I don't think this institute is quite there yet, but it might well in time. Ray^Talk 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a distinctive institute, with enough references, and it is hardly surprising that the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position are on the advisory board. The general rule of merging gives an absurd result here. (And this is the first time I saw an article nominated based on what was on the talk page). Just as a general matter, my view of Wikipedia's cultural bias is that we have a tendency towards science and against religion here, and therefore should if necessary go a little further than usual to make sure we do not exclude articles on religion, especially on organizations and people working to show the compatibility of religion and science. I have seen too many articles nominated for deletion on the very few scientists with creationist or even religion-compatible views and on their publications and organizations to feel that all this is objective. Similarly for the very few serious scientists who support the existence of psi, or UFOs, or oppose the standard theory of global warming. It almost looks as if we want to pretend they don't exist. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position" (even were this substantiated) would appear to be a largely self-selecting criteria -- so does not seem to add to notability -- particularly as this is only represents a tiny (and probably not the most "eminent") proportion of the membership of the Royal Society.
2. Listing a single reference that received prominent discussion on article talk is not basing the nomination "on what was on the talk page".
3. Basing an article on self-published/trivial coverage is not "go[ing] a little further than usual", it is throwing the notability guidelines into the dustbin.
4. Your personal inability to WP:AGF is not a basis for keeping an article. Kindly discuss the merits of the coverage, rather than your perceptions of biases and motivations. And I would point out that I have made substantial contributions to articles on a large number of creationist and compatibilist scientists, other individuals and organisations.

[belatedly Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Just hours ago you personally attacked DGG, substituting your personal subjective view for defamatory "fact", and wrote on Wikipedia for all the world to see: "DGG is notoriously radically inclusionist". You now turn around here--presumably straight-faced--and accuse him of a "personal inability to WP:AGF". This strikes me as perhaps a fair entry into the competition for the poster child of projection. Perhaps we would have a better conversation if we were to keep our civility at a high level, and avoid histrionics.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's pronounced bias towards inclusionism (which I commented upon in article talk in response to NBeale's claim that DGG's views are in some way conclusive) is evident in his above statement (as well as a large number of statements elsewhere). It is hardly a violation of WP:AGF to take notice of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say you view someone as "notorious" ("ill-famed: known widely and usually unfavorably") is ugly. To state it as fact is defamatory. An editor was indef blocked this week for calling an al-Quaeda member evil. I would suggest that DGG deserves better from you than defamatory statements, which are direct violations of Wikipedia guidelines. But I expect you're aware of this, and are just wikilawyering, so let's get back on topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're complaining about my (since striken) use of the word "notorious", on another page. Certainly an issue worthy of a lengthy thread on an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Strong Keep and (given the 9 straight keep votes, above and below) Snow Keep. Per DGG's well-stated comments, directly above. Though quite frankly, were this a science article with this level of multiple third-party coverage, impact within its sphere, non-trivial coverage (as that phrase is used in the guidance), etc., I would have precisely the same view. I'll no doubt have further comments after the nom replies to my queries, that now await him within the green bar above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. There are sufficient refs that are verifiable; non-trivial/incidental (as those phrases are clarified in the guidance -- such as newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories), reliable, and independent secondary sources. In addition, as the guidance suggests that we can also -- in instances where the refs are otherwise lacking -- consider notable and demonstrable effects on education, that if the depth of coverage is not substantial we can consider the existence of multiple independent sources to establish notability, that we can consider the fact that sources are national or international rather than only regional, that institutes are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and that the Institute's major achievements and other factors specific to the Institute may be considered, that under each of these criteria (let alone all together) the Institute is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with your reasoning on the merits of this case, but keep in mind that AfD contributions are not votes, and it is against guidelines to count them or promote thinking of them as votes. Tb (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The lack of extensive coverage in any one external reliable source is an issue, as Hrafn has pointed out, but I feel that this lack is compensated for by the number of mentions the institute gets. Each one in itself is pretty trivial, and many of them appear to be self-generated, but the quantity of separate references is adequate. However, that does not give licence for the article to be puffed up with lots of notability-boosting comments from the Faraday Institute's own publicity material. Keep it, but keep it brief. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any institute at a world top 10 university with a Nobel Laureate on its advisory board and a whole page article in Science giving a rave review to one of its "end products" would be a clear keep for me: masses of GHits and mentions in most of the major UK news media make this clearer. In fact this institute is well known to anyone active in science and religion in the UK, and has a significant international profile, many of us are "Associates" (including me)- it even gets 136 hits on richarddawkins.net. NBeale (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The above editor has admitted to being a Fellow of the Faraday Institute, so per WP:COI should not be participating in this discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that by declaring his connexion here he has ensured compliance with COI. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• I agree with Duncan. As the guidance instructs us: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.... Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.... in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view,... underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This passes notability per DGG. Martin451 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage [23], clearly notable. Artw (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have multiple WP:RS news cites, easily satisfying basic criteria for organizations. However I do agree that there is a lot of self-referencing in the article that should be trimmed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, Artw and Shawn in Montreal. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, I want to disclose that I came to this discussion because of a message at my talk by another editor supporting keep. However, I consider it appropriate, because I have made edits removing links on other pages to this page. And I'm disappointed to see the personal attacks that have attended parts of the discussion of this page. Having said all that, there is no reason to think the page fails notability (and I'm not sold on the merge idea). The correct course of action is to delete any material within the page that is promotional (or to label it as a direct quote attributed to the source), to remove any POV sources that are used inappropriately, and to add reliably sourced criticisms of the Institute. Any editors who are affiliated with the Institute should refrain from editing the page in a COI way, and should be brought to an appropriate noticeboard if they do not cooperate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a highly respected research institution whose findings are widely quoted in academic papers and discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. "Highly respected?" I wouldn't go that far. But that doesn't affect my position about keeping. Or about the need to edit it for NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It's an internationally known research institution, active in publishing, scholarship, and so forth. The article could use some improvement and depth, but it's an easy keep. Tb (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To save other editors who have yet to comment a waste of their time, given the consensus of all other than the nom here, perhaps the nom may wish as a public service to withdraw his nomination in deference to consensus of his fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if he wanted it blanked, I would not object--fwiw, I have now done 9027 deletions., #123rd among admins. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that no independent coverage has been turned up that isn't "plainly trivial", the basis for the nomination remains sound. That a large number of editors have seen fit to WP:IAR & ignore the guidelines and/or the paucity of coverage, is not a good reason to withdraw the nomination. I therefore reaffirm nomination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, too much to ask, I expect. For that I apologize. Perhaps some kind soul with sympathy for peoples' time who value the consensus of the community more will drop by, note the 11 editors who have a different view, and snow keep this.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Merge to St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Hrafn is correct; based on the available sources this Institute does not meet the notability requirements. I considered nominating this one for deletion, but saw that it had impassioned supporters, and that the quantity of its mentions meant that it was only an oversight on the part of journalists that a solid source doesn't exist yet. I suspect that the existence of this Wikipedia article since July 2006 may have forestalled the creation of a real source. Abductive (reasoning) 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I think the article has been improved a bit since the discussion started.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Editor Hrafn makes a strong case and admitedly while there are thousands of web hits and scores of google news article hits most do seem to mention the institute only in passing. However the Faraday Institute is so frequently refered to and such an important subject that a dedicated article seems warranted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I click on Google News search at the top of the AFD, and I see this organization is notable enough to get mentioned in the news for their published research. Dream Focus 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge as per Abductive (reasoning), Hrafn^Talk_Stalk and Ray. --LexCorp (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A research institute with a $2M grant sounds notable to me. Merging with St Edmund's College, would probably unbalance that article, unless there were a lot of other research institutes added. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough coverage to pass NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2009 (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.