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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Likely to be controversial, but I wanted to bring it here. I tagged it for speedy since it was at that point nothing but spam. There have been some references added but 3/4 are from the org itself. It's mentioned in the NYTImes article, but I don't know that that is significant coverage so I'm bringing it here. I'm leaning toward delete. Travellingcari (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one secondary source listed has only trivial mention of the Foundation, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the question of notability should not be based on the sources. The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements. The depth of information on the LEF website should give some indication of the size and significance of the organization. There are not likely to be independent organizations certifying the largest supplement seller nor the largest and most authoritative magazine published on the subject, but I think that there should be SOME burden of proof required for those who deny notability. -- Ben Best (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However the notability guideline says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Travellingcari (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How would one go about proving something isn't notable? --Explodicle (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements." If we can find sources to demonstrate either of these claims, then I think that will suffice for notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the largest, by a long shot. But it is pretty big. The Transhumanist 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search shows that it's been mentioned in The Guardian, FOX News, USA Today, and others. --Explodicle (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need better than those to show notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If The New York Times, The Guardian, Fox News and USA Today aren't up to your standards of notabilily sources, what would be up to your standards? --Ben Best (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that none of these articles are about LEF, but just mention it once in passing. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a notable organization, is a leading source of anti-aging information, is at the center of the legal fight for health freedom, and has played a major role throughout the history of life extension. Its monthly magazine has a circulation of over 100,000, is available at many bookstores and grocery stores across the U.S., has over 70,000 subscribers, and the magazine is a reliable source cited in articles throughout Wikipedia. In addition to its role as a publisher, a funder of anti-aging research, and a dietary supplement lobbyist, the LEF has been a major supplier of nutrition supplements via mail order for decades. It's one of the few organizations reported in the bestseller "Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach". The Transhumanist 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd only provide sources for these claims, then I think we could agree that it's notable. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's coverage in the book I mentioned establishes its notability even without the rest. The Transhumanist 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of subscribers is required by law to be printed in the magazine. If the number of copies is as large as stated, then it's certainly more notable than a lot of other organization with wikipedia articles. Keith Henson (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources cited above are adequate for notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I keep hearing about them. Bstone (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally, I think them very close to pseudoscience, and this and the walled garden of related articles need a careful examination for POV, nut they are notable. Maybe they're even right. DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not just the NYTimes & above sources that mentioned LEF, it's the Miami Herald, Tri City Herald, Portland Press Herald & more: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22life+extension+foundation%22+herald+-alcor&btnG=Search+Archives&num=50 Edwardmorrill (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The outside sources establish notabililty but the inhouse sources need to be replaced with reliable sources.Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traderb (talk • contribs)

"Keep" The LEF is an important, actually the preeminent, facility for obtaining nutritional supplements and information on all life-enhancement technology. Its roots extend back to the time of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw's Life Extension opus. With the whole life-enhancement industry full of so many different points of view and different arguments about whether this technology or that one is the best, LEF provides THE standard of excellence to measure all against. When we look back on this period in the vitalist movement, LEF will be one of the major foundations that enabled us to live vigorously, indefinitely.Bwisok (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Explodicle (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The new sources mentioned here do verify the existence of this organization, but not why it is notable. Since it's existence was never in debate, I don't see how that helps. A lot of people seem to feel passionate about this subject, which is fine, but again, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book I mentioned above presents the LEF as a supplier of nutrient supplements. That provides a why. The Transhumanist 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - I've emailed the LEF, asking them for some references that verify information about them. If anyone knows where they've been covered by the news media, they do. The Transhumanist 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think people are confusing "notable" with "widely known". The Life Extension movement itself is not very old or widespread, but LEF is well-known within that field, and has been since the Pearson/Shaw book was published. I disagree that the news articles establish their existence. A phone book establishes their existence. Their name being repeatedly mentioned in most news articles about Life Extension supplements (including several in the NY Times) proves their notability. There is no known third-party publication establishing the revenues of LEF versus any other vitamin-seller, again because the field itself is still a small enough niche that no one's bothering to do that. But here are some figures about the magazine and web site: Amazon.com currently ranks Life Extension magazine as #846 in "Magazines", and #35 under "in Magazines > Health, Mind & Body > Health", one place below FLEX magazine. Alexa currently gives lef.org a traffic rank of 45,833. --Zhmort (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ben Best is a notable figure in the life extension movement. That makes anything he writes about the LEF a reliable source, right? I found this by Ben Best: http://www.benbest.com/polecon/fdalef.html The Transhumanist 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.naturalnews.com/z021791.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Here's a news report about the FDA raid on the LEF] - The Transhumanist 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview of LEF's co-founder and directory William Faloon about the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news story that includes the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Life Extension Foundation deserves a Wikipedia article not only because it is notable (which I think has been established by previous Keep votes) but because there are things about it that are not immediately obvious — someone might wonder what it is and want to look up more-or-less-authoritative information about it in one place, which is what an encyclopedia is for. The article needs to be cleaned up and expanded (include details such as those on the Wikipedia pages for other magazines, such as Time Magazine or Reader's Digest or Men's Health (magazine). In addition, the Buyer's Club deserves its own subheading (though likely not its own page) to more clearly distinguish it from the Foundation. — Kennita 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennita728 (talk • contribs)

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.