Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Now 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 but add more sources. (non-admin closure) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Long Now Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article. No reliable sources that mention the subject. Fails WP:ORG. causa sui (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Article could probably establish notability, but as stands seems overly promotional/NPOV in tone, with no independent sources. Article has numerous notable members going for it.   78.26  (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Our editing policy is to improve such articles, not to delete them. The topic has great notability; see The Internet: A Historical Encyclopedia, for example. Warden (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources as Colonel Warden points out. Here's an IEEE Spectrum article, and there's mentions in The Guardian. (That said, deleting the article would be an amusing counterpoint to the stated goal of promoting "long-term thinking".) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable foundation; sources were easily found for it.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Highly Notable, easily found many strong sources, as others have said already. We'd better strengthen the article to make things clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every so often I come across a deletion nomination that leaves me completely gobsmacked. This is one of those. It only takes a couple of seconds, for example by looking at the search results spoonfed by the nomination process, to see that this flies way over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the amount of editorial energy that has to be devoted to blunting the assault on good articles at AfD ... is really a pity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 2 November 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.