Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Health Freedom


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Health Freedom

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There are ample mentions of this institute in reliable sources in addition to those listed, but they seem all to treat it in context of the notability of Sue Blevins, its founder. I did find a few mentions with more context and direct relation considering the institute itself, but only in self-published or unreliable (World Net Daily, Medical News Today) sources that cannot be used to establish notability. As it lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, this organization does not seem notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I only began that article less than a month ago, on 8th February. Is it reasonable to nominate an article for deletion before its author even gets a chance to develop it properly? Also, I note that your proposed grounds for deletion do not cite any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your reasoning. More to the point, all of the article's references easily meet the bar for WP:RS. As such, I contend that your claimed grounds for deletion are spurious and one-sided at best. It would be a sad day if all Wikipedia articles with references like these are to be deleted before they even get a chance to get off the ground.Vitaminman (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are better sources (i.e. deal with the institute itself more than in passing) than the ones I found and describe above, please add them. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with working on an article in your userspace (e.g. at User:Vitaminman/draft) until you are ready to take it live. The relevant guideline, which I link above, is Notability (organizations and companies). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what to make of this, to be frank.
 * Sue Blevins needs an article, if she's notable (which the nominator agrees she is). In which case, Institute for Health Freedom should either have an article of its own if it's notable in its own right, or else it should redirect to Sue Blevins if it isn't.  The Sue Blevins article could quite appropriately have a section on the Institute for Health Freedom.
 * So overall I'm going to go with Redirect.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be hundreds of news sources and books which mention this lobby group in some way. Sue Blevins seems to be their principal speaker and so the two tend to appear together but with the Institute predominating.  BLP concerns should make us prefer an article upon the organisation rather than the person.  And, in any case, it's just a matter of getting the right title, which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; I can quite see the issue over the interlinking between the Institute and Blevins. However, reading the sources, it is the body behind it, not the spokesperson, that gives the views of the Institute significance. It seems clear to me that the Institutes' views carry weight as shown by the broad range of RSs that quote it. Smile a While (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Zillions of mentions don't necessarily equate to notability. Any active "think tank" will have lots of position papers out there. But are any of them notable for any particular reason? I don't think so. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sue Blevins: this organization hasn't made the headlines at all this year. Ottre 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above, else delete. I'm seeing mentions, I'm not seeing anything in-depth that one could use to build an article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; as per my comments above. Vitaminman (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; (obvious) easily meets the threshold for inclusion in the category of advocacy groups. Their non-profit budget is significant http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1365 patsw (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (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.