Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofortified


 * 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. It has not been shown that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.  Jujutacular  talk 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Biofortified

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only decent source on the page (forbes) doesn't mention the site and I came up with nothing on google news, google scholer and a quick peruse of google books found nothinhg related specifically to this site either. Therefore failes WEB, ORG and N.  Spartaz Humbug! 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the nominator says, the majority of the sources given in the article are unreliable or published by the organization in question or its founders. The "award" it mentions is non-notable and awarded by a non-notable organization. The Forbes article includes information on Karl Haro von Mogel and Pamela Ronald, listed as key people in the infobox, and a minor mention of von Mogel's blog (possibly Biofortified?) - however, the fact that this article might contribute to the actual people being notable doesn't mean that it contributes to the website being notable. The COSMOS ref also appears to be reliable, but again is short mention of von Mogel's opinions, with a note that he is the editor of Biofortified. In a brief web search, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Dana boomer (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears that there actually is coverage in reliable sources, rather than none as stated in the above !vote. See below. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I spent a little time digging and I was able to find several more reliable third-party sources that mention and discuss Biofortified, including Seed Magazine and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I considered Dana Boomer's argument that the award was given from a non-notable organization, but if you take one look at the Ashoka: Innovators for the Public page and coverage of the activities of this organization, it is indeed notable. The COSMOS article stems from coverage of that topic on Biofortified (see here: ), which means that the content written on Biofortified is getting covered in more traditional media. Here are a few more links that suggest that the site is considered notable among scientists, but I did not add as references in the article just now because they either repeat information already in the article or merely speak to the notability issue: The University of California's Biotechnology site ucbiotech.org lists it as a helpful informational site. An article at the University of California's Cooperative Extension also directs people to go there for helpful information on GMOs. Coverage at AgBioWorld. COI: I am the article's creator and also a co-founder of the site. --Kjhvm (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; Bearing in mind recent changes to the article, I think it passes the GNG, although not by a large margin. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep Weak Keep - Per the research and arguments presented above by User:Kjhvm. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added to article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also, significant coverage on Seedquest:
 * Haro von Mogel, Karl (November 2, 2010). GENERA: Students launch a new public resource on genetic engineering and need your help. Seedquest.com.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Did you realize that the article in question is not independent as it is written by a member of Biofortified? -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Let's run down the list of those new sources added which are not sourced from this outfit's own website, written by their own staffers or consisting of Twitter feeds and the like. The Forbes article does not mention Biofortified at all.  The COSMOS article mentions Biofortified in passing, but does not discuss it in the "significant detail" the GNG requires; furthermore, it is explicitly established that quotes from a member of an organization do not serve to establish that organization's notability.  The seedmagazine.com article does not mention Biofortified at all.  The truthabouttrade.org blog, even were it a reliable source (which it is not), mentions Biofortified in passing, in a single sentence.  The AgBioWorld.com piece reads like a press release, and I await the evidence that the website constitutes a reliable source. I further await Kjhvm's link to any such article in the Post-Dispatch. Perhaps the Keep proponents are unclear about the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:V.  Articles must discuss the subject in significant detail, not people or entities associated with it, or causes championed by it.  They must be mentioned in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... not Facebook pages, not random blogs and not in any source produced by the subject or employees of the subject.  So far, I've yet to see a single qualifying source.  Ravenswing  11:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here's more information regarding the AgBioWorld source . Firstly, so there's no misunderstand about what I'm referring to, here's the source, an AgBioWorld newsletter (scroll down to view the Biofortified information in the document):


 * The following is information regarding AgBioWorld, from the "About AgBioWorld" part of their website located here:

"The AgBioWorld Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization headquartered in Auburn, Alabama, and is run by Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee University. The AgBioWorld community was established in January 2000 by Professor Prakash and Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the foundation and AgBioView e-mail service rely upon the volunteer efforts of many friends and colleagues."

AgBioWorld aims to provide science-based information on agricultural biotechnology issues to various stakeholders across the world. Its website and e-mail service are a daily source of information for thousands of subscribers from dozens of countries. The AgBioWorld 'Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology' has been endorsed by over 3,400 scientists, including 25 Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Norman Borlaug, Dr. James Watson, Dr. Arthur Kornberg, Dr. Marshall Nirenberg, Dr. Peter Doherty, Dr. Paul Berg, Mr. Oscar Arias Sanchez and Dr. John Boyer."


 * This is definitely a reliable source, in terms of the editorial integrity of the publisher. While the formatting, layout and style of the prose on the web page may suggest that it's a news release, this may not be the case. Perhaps other users can verify whether or not this information is a verbatim press release from Biofortified.


 * Regarding the Seedquest.com article :


 * Haro von Mogel, Karl (November 2, 2010). GENERA: Students launch a new public resource on genetic engineering and need your help. Seedquest.com.


 * User:Whpq is correct (see comment above), it was written by Karl Haro von Mogel, a founder of Biofortified. I mistakenly overlooked this matter, so this can only be used as a primary source, and not to establish topic notability. I've changed my !vote above to "weak keep," per the AgBioWorld article, unless it's a verbatim press release reprint, in which case my !vote would change in favor of deletion.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The AgBioWorld article has all the hallmarks of press release with contact information at the bottom. Regardless, the web site is not one that I would consider as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be an academic organization/source with intellectual integrity, though, which is reliable, in my opinion. The formatting of their website doesn't necessarily mean that the information is a verbatim reprinted press release. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit more discussion has happened in the last few days. Let me add a few more comments and respond to some of the comments above. I can confirm that the AgBioWorld piece is an adaptation of a press release, so if that disqualifies it as a notability source then that's fine. Moving on, I would like to correct Ravenswing's comments about sources. The Seed Magazine does discuss Biofortified,, and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article has already been added to the article. The link to the original piece on the Post-Dispatch website is not available, but it has been archived on many other sites, and the Truth About Trade site is one such site. Here is a google search demonstrating its ubiquity: I hope this helps clarify things some more. Note that in this discussion, an in-depth audio interview for an agricultural news site is being overlooked entirely - just thought I would mention it. --Kjhvm (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Seed Magazine article does not discuss Biofortified; it is an interview where the person being interviewed mentions the website in a single sentence. Similarly with the Post-Dispatch article; it simply mentions Biofortified in a single sentence.  That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (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.