Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galen 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 no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Galen Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Insufficient evidence of notability given, IMO. For example, a letter to the editor written by the founder is used to substantiate coverage in the New York Times. Article was previously speedied as promotional, but the current version is significantly different from the deleted version. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan - if you look at the other source material, you'll see that in addition to letters to the editor, the Galen Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, including multiple article submissions to and mentions in publicatiosn and outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, FOX Business Network, National Journal, and National Review. The Galen Institute has also been featured in the New York Times in other instances in addition to the aforementioned letters to the editor; I can document those appropriately on the page if needed. Furthermore, the Galen Institute counts among its notable scholars, trustees and fellows former high ranking officials at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, former heads of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform. I can source additional information if necessary, but under these grounds, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, there is a second New York Times source under the page's reference section to an article describing Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner's role on the 2005 Presidential Medicare Commission. This is not a letter to the editor, but rather a substantive article that clearly discusses the Galen Institute. Additionally I have added a third New York Times source - an article written by Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner for the New York Times to the reference section, so as to clear up any and all question as to: a) the appropriateness of citing the New York Times as a publication in which the Galen Institute has appeared; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting an organization's leader and mentioning the organization in that context isn't generally held to be substantial coverage. And about reconsidering deletion -- I don't make the call on that. The closing admin will review the discussion here and decide if there's consensus to keep the article based on arguments grounded in Wikipedia policies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. At first glance at the sources, I thought Sarek had been asleep.......then I saw that almost everything in a source not related to the org was a listing of something a member said etc., not coverage of the org itself. That doesn't make the org notable. No evidence that the org itself has attained notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some of the most prestigious reliable sources in the US use this organization for content on health care issues. If Fox Business Network, National Public Radio , the Wall Street Journal , the Chicago Tribune , the National Review,  and the San Francisco Chronicle  consider them notable, then Wikipedia should to. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So coverage not about the org, but about a person who belongs to the org makes the org notable? That sounds like inheriting notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Niteshift - to address your concerns, I've added articles that specifically focus on the Galen Institute as an organization, as well as articles on the Health Policy Consensus Group, to the reference section. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, if you look at the notability criteria under WP:ORG is states: "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." It's not MY concern, it's the criteria. A bunch of quotes from members do absolutely nothing to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the media coverage I list and sources I cite, while there are stories that use quotes from Galen personnel, there are also profiles of the Galen Institute, stories about the Galen Institute's funding, the organization's mission/goals, conferences held by the organization, and polling and studies conducted by the organization. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I've added a Washington Times editorial that uses polling data from the Galen Institute, and a lengthy profile of the Galen Institute from Human Events magazine. I've also added some articles that examine the Health Policy Consensus Group. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Human Events piece is a step in the right direction. The op-ed piece does nothing. They provided polling data. That's not coverage of the org. Again, the primary criteria is: "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.". "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Using a poll the org did in an article not about the org isn't going to go far in satisfying that criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I still contend, as I pointed out in my initial post regarding this subject, that the fact that the Galen Institute has been featured in multiple top-tier media sources (not only through quotes, but through profiles and other stories about the organization) provides sufficient validity and notoriety. These mentions are, in my opinion:


 * "significant coverage in secondary sources" (see the coverage of the Galen Institute by Fox Business Network, and note that while the president of the Galen Institute appears in those clips, she appears as a representative of the organization);


 * "reliable and independent of the subject" (ranging from prominent daily-run top-tier newspapers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal), to prominent magazines (National Journal, Reason Magazine, Human Events) to television (Fox Business Network) to radio (National Public Radio));


 * not "trivial or incidental" (I'm not sure one could classify commentary from the Galen Institute in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times or appearances on Fox Business Network as "trivial" and "incidental").


 * As for the piece in the Washington Times, it is not an op-ed, but an editorial - it was written by the editorial board of the paper, not the board of the Galen Institute. The polling data in the piece was not used in an article about the organization, but about health care attitudes in the United States. In other words, while the Galen Institute wasn't the subject of the piece, it was deemed significant and notable enough by the editorial board of the Washington Times for inclusion of their data and their organization in the piece. Explain how this doesn't meet reliability, significance and notability standards. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice smoke and mirror effect. Listing thing seperately, yet not exactly in context. Listing places they appeared as "reliable and independent" doesn't mean that when they appeared there, it was significant or in depth. Then you list the "significant" coverage seperately. That should be one list because both reliable and significant need to be present, not one or the other. Also, when did I say the op-ed piece was written by the org? I said it is an op-ed piece. It is. It is the editorial opinion of the paper (ie op-ed). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're taking the objective terms "significant" and "relevant" and making them subjective based on your own personal views of what's significant and what's relevant. Who's to say that having poll data used in an editorial from the Washington Times editorial board isn't significant? Who's to determine whether a focused paragraph discussing the organization's views and positions in The New York Times or a submission from the organization via its leadership to the Wall Street Journal is less significant or relevant than a fluff piece on the organization? As far as I can tell, there are few pieces solely on the organization (as is the case for other organizations featured in Wikipedia that have not faced this level of scrutiny); there are, however, hundreds of instances where the organization has submitted pieces to top publications (I doubt an insignificant organization could get a piece in the Wall Street Journal), and has been featured in top media outlets (are 6-10 minute segments on Fox Business Network not considered "in depth", even though they feature the organization, its positions and key goals?).
 * With regard to the op-eds and letters to the editor - if there is an issue with op-eds and letters to the editor being grouped with other coverage, I recognize and respect that and can make changes to separate news and opinion.
 * And you did call the Washington Times piece an op-ed, when it is, in fact, an editorial - the former is submitted by a third-party to the paper, and the latter is written by the paper's editorial board. That's the difference between the Galen Institute submitting a press release and having it published, and the editorial board referencing the organization's polling information because of its notoriety. From the Wikipedia op-ed page:


 * "An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.


 * Andrewpsroyal (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep. The deletion rationale is quite poor. Articles are not deleted for "Insufficient evidence of notability given", it is way too myopic merely to examine the "evidence given", when the true question is if evidence likely exist.  The difference between the two is of course the work required to find that evidence, and work is always unpopular.  Was WP:BEFORE followed?  Anyway, I'm in line with Oakshade, running op-eds in Wall Street Journal, not as a private person, but representing the institute, should convince most people, that notability concerns are immaterial.  Media Matters for America, an organization that "fights conservative misinformation" critizices the WSJ op-ed for not disclosing that the Galen Institute receives funding from pharmaceutical and medical industries, thereby purportedly having a conflict of interest when supporting conservative health care proposals.  Media Matters clearly see the op-ed piece as the work of the Galen institute, not the individual writing it (and so do I).  Additionally, there are about 200 Gbook hits for "Galen Institute" .  Niteshift36's interpretation of the notability guideline seems overly bureaucratic and formalistic, requesting specific 3rd party indepth mentioning of the institute, when it is pretty obvious that the Institute has very broad media profile. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to consider I might be wrong about the level of sourcing out there. However, I disagree with your GBooks search above. When I close the quote, I get 124 hits, some of which appear to mention it only in the context of an individual working with them, and some of which are books published by them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Power.corrupts - I've added that Media Matters for America article as a source to my statement about the organization's funding. Thanks for pointing it out. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Galen group and its staff may have a high profile as spokespersons, but publicity for a cause/belief/etc. is a major reason these organizations exist. The results of heavy marketing and PR efforts, no matter how successful, are as unimportant in a notability discussion as well-known or huge advertising campaigns (unless, of course, they are a focus of mainstream reporting themselves). When all the "placements" are removed, there remains no significant coverage or profile of the organization itself, or anything more than 2-4 sentence descriptions that vary little from those supplied by the organization itself or vague references to its ties or funding. As the article stands now, it's an essay written in Wikipedia style that's nothing more than repetition of the points the organization wants to get out and that are sourced only to its own people or supporters, no matter what the actual publication is. Until there is some serious objective, comprehensive mainstream reporting on this organization that delves into something deeper than talking points, then there's no reason for an article here. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're drawing the conclusion that these media mentions (or as you call them, "placements") were obtained as part of a public relations campaign rather than because of the organization's notoriety - a view that is at the very least myopic and the very worst completely misinformed. Do you have evidence that these media mentions are "placements" submitted as part of a broader public relations effort? As far as I can tell, the coverage of the Galen Institute in the press is in direct relation to their positions on health care issues, not their effort to sell themselves as a brand - having worked in print journalism and at communications agencies, I can say with an absolute degree of certainty that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times don't accept "placements" for their op-eds, and they don't publish op-eds from organizations that do not meet sufficient notoriety criteria. And, as I previously mentioned, I've added articles and television appearances that focus specifically on the organization, its funding, and its principles - sources that are not, as you assert, "vague references to its ties or funding." Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable, their studies are regularly cited by the media, and the companies personnel are regularly quoted.--Otterathome (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (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.