Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute


 * 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. Per the late provided sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Foresight Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find major coverage in unaffiliated sources on Google. Seems like a non-notable think tank. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep could find some without having to look long:, , , , ... --Fixuture (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fringe, fringe, passing mention, press release - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands - apart from this article being almost entirely sourced to primary sources, I couldn't find any sources that didn't fall foul of WP:FRIND - nobody outside its particular piece of the fringe appears to be interested - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep but improve. The Foresight Institute is a venerable fixture of the transhumanist community.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs sources for that - there's little evidence of non-fringe coverage - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as "keep but improve" itself means "this is currently unacceptable and is best removed" and it's clear this is still an advertisement, hence WP:NOT applies, enough said. SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Countless entries in Wikipedia aren't as notable as the Foresight Institute. The reader who wants to know more about the organization that awards the Feynman prize, for example, deserves a balanced and informative entry. (cf. http://news.mit.edu/2016/markus-buehler-awarded-foresight-institute-feynman-prize-0524 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foresight_Institute_Feynman_Prize_in_Nanotechnology)--Davidcpearce (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, you'll be pleased to hear that Deletion policy sets out what you can do about these problematic articles, and I look forward to your deletion nominations for them. In the meantime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a fairly consistently losing argument in an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's the point, we shouldn't need to waste an insane number of hours discussing what is and isn't "notable" - which ultimately turns on philosophical as well as factual issues. Even if one regards transhumanism as fringe - and no more notable than, say, tiddlywinks - if a Wikipedia editor is kind enough to add informative entries on the history, currents and controversies of the diverse tiddlywink organisations, then great! In the case of the Foresight Institute, however, its work and standing predate the contemporary transhumanist movement.--Davidcpearce (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good venue to debate the merits or viability of the concept of notability. It grounds discussions such as this one and while you're free to argue to keep per WP:IAR, ultimately the subject is whether there has been ~"significant coverage in reliable sources" (according to precedent of how those terms are defined). The way to change minds is to add links to coverage that is not connected to the institute, published in reliable mainstream or academic sources, and goes into some level of detail about the institute. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is now, all the references are primary, which is obviously not acceptable. Since the organization is old (founded 1986), many of the references are in book form or otherwise not readily Googleable. I'll add these to the article over the next few hours. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:9043:C275:6FB:FBD3 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, references added. "Nano-Hype" (Berube) and "The Visioneers" (McCray) go into a ton more detail, so it'd be easy to expand further if anyone wants to write it all up. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:9043:C275:6FB:FBD3 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG: the subject of a San Francisco Weekly article, covered in several places throughout The Visioneers (Princeton University Press), covered in several places in Toward a New Dimension (Oxford University Press), it has its own entry in the Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society (SAGE), it's the subject of a section in Nanotechnology (CRC Press [Taylor & Francis]), subject of a section in Nano-Hype (Prometheus)... this isn't even counting the less substantial articles here and there covering the Feynman prize. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. Hang googles (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient significant information and referneces.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as those provided above by . North America1000 02:24, 23 December 2016 (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.