Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifeboat 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   delete. we don't seem to have picked up any sources at all for this so policy is clear Spartaz Humbug! 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lifeboat Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The concern is Notability when evaluating against the standards at WP:notability (organizations). The organization has a decent website, over a 1000 contributors in committees, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, and a blog has appeared on it which is on the [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/the-lifeboat-foundation-battling-asteroids-nanobots-and-a-i/. New York times website]. Furthermore, there is substantial info on its founder (Eric Klien). However, about the organization itself, no reliable sources seem to be available from a google search. For notability of Non-commercial organizations which are international in scope, still it is required that "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources", which do not exist. L.tak (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. There is a real lack of notability, most of the references are from the foundation's own website, and the couple that are not, merely have a small lifeboat foundation symbol in a corner. Passionless (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its is damned hard to find anything from any 3P mainstream press about them.  What does that tell us???  BobbieCharlton (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Hard to find anything in mainstream press? I found this after about 5 seconds. Does the New York Times count as mainstream?
 * Consider this quote, 20th July 2010:


 * The New York Times reference is also mentioned on Ray Kurzweil's AI website. Both Ray and his website are very notable.
 * KurzweilAI.net has also mentioned the Lifeboat Foundation on another occasion, Jan 1st 2009, http://www.kurzweilai.net/stephen-hawking-named-lifeboat-foundation-2008-guardian-award-winner
 * Wired is also a noteworthy source, October 29, 2007: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/apocalypse-soon/
 * 86.184.247.59 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Anonymous
 * Let me give a point by point reaction to the sources you gave. I was aware of them all, but thought they would not count as wp:reliable sources. As:
 * The New York Times "article" is actually a blog (posted on blogs.nytimes.com) and thus show the individual opinion of an (not well-known writer). Blogs are generally excluded as reliable sources, even if they are blogging websites linked to a very notable newspaper
 * The article on Kurzweiliai is a copy of the website-text of the lifeboat foundation itself and therefore merely constitutes copy-pasting of a press release. (which is explicitly excluded under WP:notability (organizations).
 * As for the wired article, that is under blogs, (and then Dangerroom), so a blog again of a non-well-known person. (furthermore, it seems that it is placed under the tag bizarro; which makes it also a bit questionable looking at the entries of that tag.
 * Furthermore you quote the lifeboat foundation stating that many people give money. Although that might be a good and true thing. The missing problem here is nobability established by external sources. The foundation itself surely is not such an external source, so we can not judge if this is a notable thing (and besides, the large multinational Sun giving only 1000 dollar?). And the 2 nobel prize winners: if they were to give interviews in which the Lifeboat foundation is the main subject, such things might constitute reliable sources, not the foundation stating it has 2 winners in its listings. L.tak (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - found coverage on Kurzweil's site and the New York Times. KVIKountry (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * are you refering to the literal copy of the press release on Kurzweil's site ([this one?)? and the blog on New York Times "NYT"? Or did you find other sources? [[User:L.tak|L.tak]] (talk) 07:20, 10 January 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.