Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluoride Action Network


 * 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. I,just spent several minutes writing up specifics about which comments here were considered valid and which were not when I decided it would just be simpler to explain it thusly: Arguments with a basis on Wikipedia policy and content guidelines are given greater weight than any arguments, comments, comparisons, accusation, etc, with no basis at all (or a logically flawed assertion of a basis) in Wikipedia policy. Take all that out and what is left indicates a consensus to delete this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride Action Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject appears to be a WP:FRINGE "mom and pop" Advocacy organization, with a long history of abuse and sockpuppetry including community bans on wikipedia. Has links but they seem to be mostly primary sources and insufficient trivial coverage and non reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain it's fringe, there are legitimate journals publishing positive reviews of their work, e.g. . Still, these are discussing publications by FAN people, not discussing the FAN itself. An article about the organization seems doomed to having little or no secondary reliable sourcing. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is one week's worth of news coverage found via Google News. How is this not secondary sourcing per WP:NONPROFIT? They've been around for 12 years. They are global. A better summary of their press, http://www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about/fan_news/ -SM  07:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a lot of trivial mention in passing while discussing fluoridation debates. That is not equivalent to substantive coverage of the organization: its people, its funding, its operational methods, etc. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the standard, which is clearly met. You are raising the bar considerably and arbitrarily. -SM  14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable fringe organization which fail GNG. Note, however, that misbehavior here in Wikipedia by supporters of the organization is not grounds for deletion of this article. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, and fix. A simple Google search of water fluoridation controversy shows how many other anti-fluoridation sites make reference to FAN. FAN is clearly WP:GNG, and calling it WP:FRINGEY does not detract from its notability. Further, it is not fringey in the sense that it is at the center of anti-fluoridation thinking, and the repeated failure at the polls of pro-fluoridation measures show this thinking to be itself quite notable.  The article does have more primary sources than strictly necessary, but they are cited in press with reasonable frequency.  The characterization mom and pop is similarly irrelevant and pointlessly pejorative: many organizations achieve significance with small staff, some of whom may be family.  Finally, the antisocial behavior of some proponents should not enter into deletion of a topic, but should instead provoke an honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all.  -SM  08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * reply "should instead provoke an honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all"? Really? Why? They're cranks, possessed of The Truth™ and determined to shove it into Wikipedia, despite all our silly rules about fringery, reliable sourcing, sock-puppeting, and so on. That's what they do. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * counterreply I'm sorry, who are the they to whom you refer? I have asked for evidence of wrongdoing on the part of FAN itself. Crickets.  As to my question, why is this happening at all?, because this sort of aggressive deletionism, which seems more so born of an evident distaste for the subject, breeds bad behavior.  It is not necessary. -SM  21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * response the "they" would be those folks referred to under the rubric "the antisocial behavior of some proponents". As to the urged "honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all": there is no movement, no matter how honorable or wise or true, that does not attract some jerks to it. The fact that the FAN seems to have some people who A) support it; and B) commit anti-social acts in its cause, is no reason for us to engage in deep soul-searching self-examinations, because such cranks exist and act like cranks act (the point of my message), for which FAN itself is not necessarily to blame. Such behavior is a daily fact in Wikipedia, but says much more about the possessors of The Truth™ than about Wikipedia, as any newspaper or journal editor, or publisher, can tell you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability requires verifiable evidence. A "simple Google search" showing mentions on " other anti-fluoridation sites" does not demonstrate notability merely because it exists, nor is notability inherited. Additionaly, Primary sources, no secondary reliable sourcing and insufficient trivial coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the subject fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG --Hu12 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * countercomment. I say they pass, clearly, WP:GNG. Are mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites unnotable because anti-fluoridation is just dumb in your view?    Diversifying sources is better than deleting articles. Will you next want to AfD Water fluoridation controversy itself? An exercise: name an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation  more notable than FAN, or does opposing water fluoridation consign one ipso facto to a deserved obscurity? I'm daring to examine motives here (ordinarily somewhat rude) not because I doubt that you sincerely want to improve the encyclopedia, but because I see zero concern for how properly to represent the topic of opposition to water fluoridation. -SM  21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Counter-Countercomment. "Are mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites unnotable because anti-fluoridation is just dumb in your view? " Its not my view. Notability is not importance, "mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites" or popularity... Notability is based on Wikipedias content policies and they apply to all articles. Wikipedia requires the existence of "reliable", "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information. Wikipedia requires that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising an organization. Fluoride Action Network does not meet this criteria and clearly fails Wikipedias inclusion guidelines. Also, attributing motives to fellow editors is inappropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * c3-comment. I see your point about notability transcending mere popularity: Wikipedia should only document, not raise a subject's profile. You have not, however, answered the important question, Is there  an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN, or does opposing water fluoridation consign one ipso facto to a deserved obscurity?.  If you can think of no more notable organization, it begs the question of whether you think the topic is even notable, a reasonable question, rhetorically.  Also, you keep saying that FAN is not WP:GNG, but have not substantiated this beyond saying that all who do take note of them are irrelevant.   I am not assigning you motives, but I am struggling to see any evidence of what you are saying. When you imply that having an article on FAN amounts to, passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information., it is difficult not to see a reliance, here and elsewhere, upon a working assumption that anti-fluoridation is just dumb. -SM  02:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Is there an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN...". How is that an "important question"? Its immaterial nor does it demonstrate  this topics notability. Supported by Primary sources, no secondary reliable sourcing and insufficient trivial coverage, Fluoride Action Network fails misserably both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I find it quite revealing when Quoting the notability guideline(bullet point 2), you attribute it to working under the assumption and implying that anti-fluoridation is just dumb. Quite Tendentious --Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an important question in that failing an answer to that implies that there is no organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation worth noting, a very counter-intuitive result. You're just the editor proposing to delete an article, with little to support that apart from criticizing the subject.   I haven't accused you of malice, so please stop making this about you.  It is about the enormous void in your argument where there should be explicit evidence, like that FAN itself is somehow acting badly on Wikipedia, or that it's too fringey to be notable, or that it fails WP:GNG, or that deletion is the only answer to correcting its article's flaws, rather than adding a template requesting sources.  The essay you cite doesn't really mean much in this context, and is not a blanket refutation of any comparisons, which is how it seems to be used sometimes.  -SM  05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Requirements such as "Verifiable "Reliable", "third-party" "independent sources"  prove a subjects notability. Rhetoric and Conjecture does not. --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Conjecture? This case seems to be you attemping to delete an article by WP:VAGUEWAVE, denying evidence and WP:AOTE in turn.  Please answer the question, Is there  an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN, or is there no such organization at all that is sufficiently  notable?.  BTW, Rhetoric is that stuff that turns a grabbag of WP:VAGUEWAVE into a well-crafted, valid argument.  -SM  01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * reply - yes, that seems to be the consensus here, SM: that if there is an organization in this area that meets our standards for organizational notability, FAN ain't it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Using WP:CORP is incorrect. How is it failing WP:NONPROFIT (which please read)?  Why are the news mentions (several links above, including the template default), and all the other anti-fluoridation mentions somehow not relevant? Answer the real question: what is more notable than FAN, and doesn't the idea that there is no such organization at all that is sufficiently notable counter-intuitive?  This is not consensus.  -SM  13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to check your links, SM: WP:NONPROFIT is just a link to a specific sub-section of WP:CORP. Mere mentions, even by the dozens, do not constitute the requisite "substantial coverage" of an organization. And I see nothing counter-intuitive in the least about the idea that there is no notable organization pushing a fringe theory. The only reason there is an article about the Flat Earth Society in Wikipedia is that a number of reporters and essayists over the years have written substantial articles about it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did check the links, WP;NONPROFIT is under Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, which FAN clearly meets. There is no requisite "substantial coverage" criterion there, though the Google searches already posted do constitute substantial coverage. As to your counter-intuitive (to me) conclusion: there is an article on the notable Water fluoridation controversy, but no one of note is actually currently opposing it.  This is wishful thinking, consistent with an unconcealed hostility to the topic. It does not reflect reality.  This should be concerning. -SM  21:04, 4 October 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.