Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcor Life Extension Foundation


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Alcor Life Extension Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of Notability. The organisation has only 8 employees, their size are very small. Besides, it seems that the organisation may make use of Wikipedia for promotion. Joeccho (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC) — Joeccho (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The page has 45 sources and it is easy to find more such as this BBC coverage. The number of employees is irrelevant per WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. The staff head count at Wikipedia used to be a half  – just one part-timer.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is hosted by WikiMedia which has over 300 employees and contractors. In addition to few employees, there are only a very small number of patients and members for the organisation.  I understand there may be have arbitrary number problem when we talk about their size, but an organisation notability is arbitrary by nature. Joeccho (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet the general notability criteria pretty easily; there is substantial coverage from a range of independent sources included in the article, per WP:CORPDEPTH. I also cannot see that the article is written in a particularly promotional tone - the sections on policies and procedures and on membership are perhaps a little promotional but not terribly so, in my opinion, and there is a substantial section on criticism and controversies. If their employees should use the article for promotional purposes, that can be fixed without deleting it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do it really have independent and significant coverage about the company, not just mere mentions about it. Joeccho (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of independent coverage and quite a lot of discussion of what it does. Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, a well-known organization in the field of cryonics and life extensionism, which has garnered a lot of coverage outside that field.  - WPGA2345 -  ☛  01:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious keep since Alcor is the best-known of all the cryonics organizations, according to Google N-gram viewer. There is plenty of lengthy coverage of it in WP:RS literature, and this is documented in the references to this article (Joechho asks if the coverage is "signifcant"-- over all, it is. But he must read the references to answer his own question; that's what they are there for). The second best-known cryonics organization, Cryonics Institute, is about the same size (1200 full members), started at about the same time (Alcor did a first cryopreservation in 1976, CI's first was 1977). But Alcor has far more money in its suspension fund than CI, and more famous cryopreserved people, including the first man to be cryopreserved in 1967, James Bedford, and of course baseball's Ted Williams. S  B Harris 04:35, 4 December 2018 (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.