Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutherford Institute

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. No consensus to delete. Clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford Institute

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

Insufficient notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the unsourced content (about 2/3 of the article). If the unsourced content is not reinserted, and if the article is being written based on reliable sources, I'll withdraw the nomination in a few days. Cs32en Talk to me 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of a series of hit-and-run AfD nominations by a single editor, coming just three minutes after the previous one and two minutes before the next. We seriously need to ban the use of automated tools for AfD nominations. As one might expect, WP:BEFORE was clearly not followed here, with 260,000 Google matches for the specific phrase "Rutherford Institute." An iceberg that size is sufficient for the manufacture of several independently published and substantial snocones at AfD. This never should have been nominated. The Rutherford Institute is best known as a player in the Paula Jones/Bill Clinton scandal, an ongoing series of mini-"events" with historic importance. I'd look up some sources for y'all, but I've already invested more time in writing this paragraph than the nominator did in researching whether this was worthy of deletion, filing the deletion request materials at AfD, and making the necessary notifications. (Maybe what we need automated tools for AfD defenses...) Carrite (talk) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst I agree this is not a deletion candidate, I see no value in attacking the nominator in this way. That there are multiple nominations being made quicky does not necessarily mean they are insufficiently researched. For all you know the list of articles could have been researched and prepared in advance. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who worship Google News will be noting that there are over 4700 hits there. This should be a speedy keep... Carrite (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. The sources in the article are already an indication of notability per WP:N. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are currently referenced in the text are (a) reliable sources mentioning the Rutherford Institute in a trivial way, (b) reliable sources mentioning the Rutherford Institute in connection with the lawsuit of Paula Jones against former President Bill Clinton (one event), (c) opinion pieces, (d) blogs, (e) a single source by a research institute that may or may not qualify as a reliable source. These sources are not adequate to establish sufficient notability, and do not allow to write an article based on information that is actually reliable. However, the article may well be saved if more acceptable sources are found and included. Cs32en Talk to me 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources exist the article will be saved regardless of whether the references are added to the article before the close of play. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per the previous keep rationales. The weakness of my conviction reflects only my lack of previous knowledge of this organisation, but from what I can see it is (a) notable due to its prominence in a number of well reported cases, and (b) very controversial. This controversy is not really reflected in the article about it; I don't think it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include discussion of the controversy so long as it is suitably backed up with references. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If articles are so poorly sourced that there is no way to determine whether they conform to WP:NPOV, then we cannot indefinitely hope that sources may be eventually added to the article at some point of time in the future. The best way in such cases would be to have a deadline, with a bot-generated AfD after 6 weeks for example. But as we don't have such a bot or process, we need to make a decision based on the actual state of an article at some point. Wikipedia must not be cluttered with potentially tendentious articles just because we cannot exclude the possibility that they may be fixed eventually. Cs32en Talk to me 18:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The triple negative at the end makes my head spin. The question at AfD is whether a topic meets notability standards. Nominators are expected to check the internets BEFORE making a gratuitous nomination. There is absolutely no way in the green hills of allah that the Rutherford Institute is going to fail the General Notabiity Guideline. This never should have been nominated, period — a cursory Google search should have made that clear. Yet here we are, burning valuable time... Now, to your point: Wikipedia must not be cluttered... [it already is cluttered, but it's not paper, so no worries] ... with potentially tendentious articles... [controversy or possible controversy is no excuse for deletion] ...just because we [think they] may be fixed eventually. [Rome wasn't built in a day, millions of articles are in an unfinished state. That's part of the deal at Wikipedia — everything is work in progress, by definition.] Carrite (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:ORG; some was already cited, some was not. POV issues should be solved through editing, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sufficient sources. Though I would not like to think it happening here, nominating for deletion a number of controversial articles on people or organizations with a similar perspective or dealing with the same sort of general subjects has sometimes indicated bias. That's not reason for necessarily rejecting this or the other nominations from the same editor, but a reason for looking very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I confess when I saw this pop up on my Virginia delsorting watchlist I did a bit of a double take and muttered a WTF?? under my breath. The Rutherford institute is a major civil liberties organization (albeit with a more religious bent). They're currently defending John Freshwater [1] and they've been involved in a host of other high profile cases documented in reliable sources. They even managed to swing an AP article about its founding [2]. Breezes right past WP:GNG. I'll add this article to my TODO list and try to beef it up when I get a chance.... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (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.

Rutherford Institute

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.