Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Osteoporosis Foundation


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

International Osteoporosis Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was recently re-created by the paid Communications Coordinator for IOF, an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to International Osteoporosis Foundation. Was deleted multiple times under multiple incarnations such as International osteoporosis foundation and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), and recently un-salted at DRV, without bias of an AFD nom. This is one Part of a larger history of promotion on Wikipedia by the International Osteoporosis Foundation, see also -User_talk:Hu12. While it has a few links, they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. No significant third-party coverage could be found. Nothing more than continued Self-promotion and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The un.org link only lists the IOF name (along with hundreds of others). This is a generic list which is trivial.
 * The springer.com links are to self-published material and/or IOF Publications.
 * The ryortho.com link is RRY Publications, a marketing site masquarading as a source. looks as if won a Silver ADDY® Award for "creative excellence in advertising.".
 * Keep I'm seeing them being quoted one hell of a lot in news. Over 4500 hits on Scholar, including some with the WHO. Someone thinks they are notable enough to be listened to and quoted, on a very regular basis.  That alone tells me they pass wp:n if only in a general way.   Dennis Brown (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This page was created a number of times by someone several years ago. These were deleted for copyright violation by Hu12, then finally the page was blocked. I created a new page and asked Hu12 to review it, however he continues to insist it is spam, self promotion and not noteable. I disagree, and as a result I launched a deletion request review Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30 which was successful. The admin agreed the page was noteable, not spam, and should be returned to the main space. The very same day it was returned to the main space, Hu12 once again marked it for deletion. You can view the Deletion Review log (Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30) for discussion admin have already had on why this page should not be deleted. Inyon011 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Note that this article was recently restored to mainspace after a listing at DRV. I closed that discussion as restore to mainspace. While the consensus was not overwhelming, DGG does link to specific academic indications of notability and it seems unreasonable to immediately relist this without allowing the article time to grow. Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The topic is solidly notable; this organization is frequently listed as a source for further information on Osteoporosis, &c. I added a couple of refs.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - First off, this is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit organization engaging in the abuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. That is significant and should shift the height of the notability bar, in my opinion. I find that this organization's reports on Vitamin D deficiency are being cited by others as authoritative, such as THIS LINK to a piece by Science Daily, for example. The National Institute of Health links up to the IOF's material through it's website, see THIS EXAMPLE, indicating that its research is considered expert. I don't see any reasonable reading of this page as "spam" and feel that its deletion would remove information likely to be of use to Wikipedia visitors without any corresponding benefit to the project. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of this AFD. This organization is notable enough to be mentioned in the news, they considering it notable and reliable enough to quote statistics from. Reuters does fact checking from it.   D r e a m Focus  10:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you about keeping this, I really do wish you would use policy based arguments rather then your own interpretation of what policy should be. You know full well that "mentions" do not count towards notability and that what is required are specific detailed sources. Vague waves towards googlehits/returns are also pretty worthless. Your AFD votes would be much more effective if you stuck to policy based arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Policies must be followed absolutely. Guidelines have at their top a tag that says you they can't be ignored, you using common sense.  Common sense says if an organization is notable enough to have itself or its research quoted by major news sources, then its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  I'll see about adding that to the guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG.   D r e a m Focus  03:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add comments to my proposal at   D r e a m Focus  03:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 April 2011 (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.