Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropedia 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   delete. Independent coverage appears to be lacking. Although WP:N is a guideline which can be ignored, no compelling reason has been presented why it should be ignored in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthropedia Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is asserted by inheritance from the board of directors, but not established. 31 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia article and categories. The creator is a single-purpose account, behaviour indicates a conflict of interest. Article is entirely self-sourced and comprised mainly of laundry lists. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as well as the fact that it gets no hits on Google News, Books, or Scholar, which is suspicious for a scientific foundation that's supposedly notable.--Unscented (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see no reason to delete this page regardless of the above mentioned shortcomings. There is no harm done, no obvious intent to deceive, no offers to sell products. I was glad to find the page while exploring a research topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, Anthropedia claims to be a "health education" non-profit, not a scientific research organization, so it is understandable that it would not show up on Google Books or Scholar. However, various members of the Board and Institute have published in peer-reviewed journals. As for Google News, this organization clearly is young and has not garnered much publicity, but the same could be said for other organizations/institutes with pages here. Given that the language is neutral and generally informative, I would recommend maintaining the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.47.66 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No prejudice to recreation if they do attract some in-depth coverage from independent sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability not established at this time. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to suggest they are notable. When it is not so young, and has garnered some publicity, then it can be recreated. Rockpock  e  t  02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I would like to echo the abovementioned comment that responds to the use of Google Scholar, etc. as a litmus test for legitimacy in this particular case; a search of members of the Institute and/or Board of Directors reveals hundreds of entries of peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, it seems that the organization meets the two alternate criteria outlined in the notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations: its activities are national/international in scope, and information about the organization can be verified by reliable third party partners and collaborators. Inquiry,enquiry (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This foundation has many notable members on its board, which is more than can be said for many of the small non-profit pages that appear in the wikipedia database. A quick look at its website also shows that it is not a local enterprise and that they have been active in various communities around the world.  For example, they have given workshops and lectures on their programs in both the national and international circuits (see, for example, http://www.aidwellbeing.org/site/PageServer?pagename=programs_healthconf).  They work with the Center for Well-Being at Washington University in St. Louis and host the online version of the TCI personality test, which appears in the Wikipedia database (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament_and_Character_Inventory and http://psychobiology.wustl.edu). --Stevericks (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the "keep votes" come from brand-new accounts and unregistered IP addresses, and since accounts are free on Wikipedia, this naturally will make some people wonder whether all of these comments might be from the same person.  It also suggests that the "keep" supporters are probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia's process for deleting articles.  Since this is not a majority vote, I'd like to clarify for our new editors (welcome!) that what we need for an article on an organization is a bona fide independent, third-party publication (e.g., a story in a major newspaper or magazine) that is about the specific organization.  Note that an article about the organization is different from an article that merely happens to mention the organization, or that is about a single person or member of the organization.  One detailed profile in a major media outlet trumps all "delete" comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this page for Wikipedia and appreciate all of the input to this discussion. As noted in the initial post, this was my first article on the database; I have done some volunteer work for Anthropedia and thought it was well-deserving of an entry. I followed the guidelines mentioned above; namely, that an organization needs to be national/international in scope and have third party partners that can verify information about it. Anthropedia meets both criteria. I guess I could have added (and would add), for example, an external link to Project Rebirth, which is one of Anthropedia's partners (http://www.projectrebirth.org/partners.php), though I did provide a list of partners. I could have also provided a link to an article on the foundation published in Excellence International (http://www.excellence-international.ch/), a high profile lifestyle publication (http://www.aidwellbeing.org/site/DocServer/excellenceinternational.pdf?docID=129). Anthropedia is a young organization and does not yet have a strong presence online, but, while often a good way to learn about an organization, this is not a criterion according to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Anthropedia has partnerships with highly reputed organizations such as the World Health Organization and Project Rebirth, and has participated in international projects. In addition, as someone already noted, the members of the board and institute are extremely notable, and they are the basis of the foundation. In sum, while I am new to this and respect the judgment of those who are more knowledgeable about the Wikipedia community, I do not think it is appropriate to delete this entry. I do not believe the article is biased, nor does it try to sell any product. Moreover, the page will be of interest, if not immediately to a mainstream audience, certainly to researchers, health specialists, and other organizations. Thank you for your consideration.Volume28 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (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.