Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. No significant independent sources on this group. Group advocates for FRINGE science. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets, WP:NONPROFIT. Can you specify and reference what you mean with, Group advocates for FRINGE science.? You seem to be the first to claim that this network of researchers advocates fringe science. prokaryotes (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with more authority references. prokaryotes (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is one (1) independent, reliable source (as far as I can tell at this point) and that is the SciDev article. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question, also it seems that you have issue with counting. Notice that the editor removed reliable sources. prokaryotes (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * press releases are not reliable sources, nor are they independent. I already told you this, but look at the bottom of the phys.org source, where it says "Provided by: European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility".  Press releases are not independent and not reliable beyond a claim about what the organization says about itself.  It doesn't count toward NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the Physorg source is used for the lede outline. However, you still do not respond in regards to your claims that ENSSER is a fringe group or why you removed reliable sources from the article. A dialog always includes 2 sides, so far you ignore my questions - in regards to serious accusations.prokaryotes (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Prokaryotes. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. The fact that the group may advocate for fringe science (if Jytdog is correct) does not make the group non-notable nor prohibit its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP does not censor, nor do we limit inclusion to those groups which are politically correct. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * response above fails to deal with lack of independent sourcing, which is the first reason given. Smoke, not light. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Forbes
 * Phys.org
 * Reason.com
 * Science 2.0
 * book 1
 * book 2
 * book 3
 * book 4, 143 (2015).
 * book 5
 * book 6
 * book 7
 * I could go on. You really should have done WP:BEFORE. Smoke and light? Really? GregJackP   Boomer!   18:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have presented there are a bunch of passing mentions. Being good at press releases =/= NOTABILITY.  And for the second time here, phys.org is a press release.  What you value so much as "content creation" seems to have incredibly low standards and yes, I was already aware of these mentions.  Most of them point out the FRINGE nature of the group, if you have bothered to read the sources you brought.  Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please. The Forbes article talks about the organization and completely discredits any serious scientific chops it claims. The Phys.org is completely about ENSSER, and is not a PR. Reason spends the entire article refuting the position of ENSSER. It's positions are covered in the books listed, usually with a comment that ENSSER is wrong. That's GNG, and you don't get to censor things that you do not like. Screaming "FRINGE" does not mean you get to ban mention of notable groups from WP. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, at the bottom of the phys.org source it says it comes direct from ENSSER. That is the bulk of the content on phys.org - it publishes press releases and puts statements like that at the bottom.  I am not censoring; there is a lack of sourcing giving significant discussion to this tiny advocacy organization. Jytdog (talk)
 * With regard to the Forbes source, that is written by Jon Entine. In all my work on GMOs, I never cite him, as he is a known advocate for GMOs.  The GMO articles would look very different if I actually edited like you claim I do.   I only use high quality, independent sources.  And in this case, the only thing that comes close and that provides significant discussion is the SciDev piece. If this article is a "keep", this may be a case to cite Entine, since the whole article is about advocacy anyway. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Book 4 link isn't working. prokaryotes (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The organisation is presented in a paper that I found though google scholar and is found here. The second of the two editors seems to have done a range of other scholarly work presuming that this is the same person.  GregKaye 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG, there needs to be independent reliable sources about the organization', not its members. There is exactly one. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The organization has received coverage from the Huffington Post, the Economist, and the LA Times, and other media outlets. The article meets WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per GregJack's excellent research of numerous sources to counteract any disagreements. I'm a little confused as to why this was nominated when there is so much coverage that can be easily found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * as above, passing mentions are not useful for establishing NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , the articles cited here include more than "passing mentions" of this organization. For example, the GMO Journal article discusses the context of the group's advocacy in the larger GM food debate, and the Forbes article discusses the merits of the group's statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The GMO Journal site is a blog. The internet is full of blogs about GMOs.  I never use them - they are not the kind of high quality sources we should use on controversial topics.  There are probably many, many, many more similar sites that could be added as well; there is tons of anti-GMO advocacy on the web.  GMOs are a science-based topic, not video games.   Bringing those sources in would turn GMOs into Gamergate. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , that's a fair point — I shouldn't have brought in GMO Journal as a source. However, there are enough reliable sources that describe this group in sufficient depth and detail. You can see some of these sources in the section of the article about the group's activities, which I have recently expanded. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article clearly serves a useful purpose and has some credible sources behind it. I'll be the first to admit that it could be improved and expanded--so let's just do that, rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Garagepunk66 (talk • contribs)  22:26, 5 September 2015(UTC)


 * I just want to cite NOTABILITY here: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Where is the "significant independent coverage"?  A bunch of passing mentions related to their PR around their claim that there is no consensus on the safety of GM food, doesn't cut it, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, there are publications in the article (which Jytdog btw tried to remove), published in a peer reviewed journal. There is especially extensive coverage in regards to 1 of those publications. prokaryotes (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep; although I do sympathise with Jytdog's comments I'm afraid arguments otherwise are prevalent and have greater weight. A cursory search has demonstrated this passes general notability. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and snow close with a trout for OP, as this organization has published articles whose inclusion OP is actively arguing against at Genetically modified foods, to no avail. It strikes me as bad form and a bit underhanded, this. The ENSSER published a paper which calls attention to the work done by OP at the GMO article.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above keeps, and as Petrachan47 points out, the OP is promoting an Afd that gives a strong suggestion of manipulation. My credulity is strained by this Afd, which appears to be part of an ongoing pattern.  Jus  da  fax   06:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia requires 2 reliable sources at a minimum, and 3 if there is doubt. Can someone who votes keep please show the 2-3 sources which confirm WP:N? Only show 2-3 that pass.. I am ready to change my vote when someone shows those best sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:02, 9 September 2015 (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.