Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic, Inc. (organization)


 * 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.  So Why  13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Magic, Inc. (organization)

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable organization dedicated to non-notable redlinked "philosophy"; no substantial coverage. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are presently two non-primary source references to the subject of the article. Both non-primary source references cover the subject in depth.  It is my current opinion that there are insufficient references presently on article, to verify notability, to include WP:ORG.  If article is improved I am willing to reevaluate my opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unorganized, not enough references, not known well enough, and if it is it needs more references it back it up. House1090 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (statement by creator) In my view its notability is marginal on the side of meeting the standard. There are multiple mentions in local media, including the 2 articles used as refs, an additional article in Palo Alto Weekly in August 2003 that I have not been able to access, and numerous news references to tree planting, traffic mediation, and receipt of national and county recognition. The members publish and speak at conferences; there is some national and international mention of it as a result. In the interests of neutral tone, I initially left out mention of awards received but have put that in since the article was nominated for deletion; similarly I have added other material after initially putting in only what I felt was necessary without undue weight.  I don't think this is a major, major group or philosophy.  I will continue to search for mentions in larger newspapers, but there is a problem of lack of records for earlier years and also the San Jose Mercury News paywall.  Another issue is obviously that the name generates considerable noise in Google searches (hits for General Magic, Inc. are hard to filter out, and Magic, Inc. is often referred to simply as Magic).  A better idea of coverage is gained by searching for Schrom's name together with Magic; I have not as yet searched as thoroughly under other names mentioned as members, but suspect other coverage will come up in such searches.  I think a problem with establishing notability in the case of groups like this is that working for sustainable living and the realization of human potential entails a focus on the local, but I see national recognition of this group's principles and emulation of their practice among those with similar concerns. . . . And that's why I thought it merited an article and wrote it up.  I have been having trouble documenting the awards, largely for the same reason of lack of online listing of earlier years, and will continue working on that and on news searches.  In the meantime, absent strong documentation of the awards I don't think the article is ready for dividing into sections, but if you think it's disorganized, please feel free to move things around and section them to make it clearer. . . . On Valuescience, I'm being scrupulous and not simply linking inline to Value Science, and philosophy is not an expertise of mine, but my suspicion is that they are fundamentally the same, so I have added a "See also."  If they are the same, Valuescience is not non-notable, and it seems a strong point in its favor that Stanford has had a course in it for 30 years. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been looking at the references provided:
 * Stett Holbrook, "Magic vs. Illusion," Metro Silicon Valley
 * I'm puzzled. Stett Holbrook is "the food editor and restaurant critic for Metro Silicon Valley - why is he covering this subject? I'm guessing that he is connected with the group, as all his other stories at MSV are food- and restaurant-related. If this is the case, this is not "independent coverage" as required by WP:NOTABILITY
 * Magic Website - obviously not an independent source of information
 * Joshua Fried, "A Different Path: In the heart of Palo Alto, a Group called Magic Lives and Works Cooperatively," Stanford Magazine, January-February 2004
 * This is the Stanford Alumni magazine. Joshua Fried appears to be a freelance journalist. I do not know if this magazine is counted as a reliable source or not, so I can't comment further
 * A 2003 profile, Grace Rauh, "A Magical World: Cooperative House an Island in a Chaotic World," Palo Alto Online, July 30, 2003, refers to approximately $70,000 a year in cash, roughly half donations and half payments for services, and in-kind gifts of roughly $50,000.
 * This looks good to me, as it is from Palo Alto Weekly, a community newspaper.
 * See also David Schrom, "Can We Use Science to Know Our Ends?" (pdf), Letters to the Editor, BioScience 54.4 (April 2004)
 * This is a letter, written by one of Magic's staff - not independent
 * Stanford University's page on the campus oaks refers to Magic's survey and planting activities.
 * A one-sentence mention - not "significant coverage"
 * At the moment, I'm not totally convinced that the organisation is notable enough for inclusion, but I'm going to think about it for another couple of days before weighing in with my opinion. Incidently, Yngvadottir, are you involved with the organisation yourself? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. I only learned about it from the Holbrook article. Metro Silicon Valley is another community newspaper - based in San Jose, and thus less involved in goings on in Palo Alto than Palo Alto Weekly. (They also have a tradition of investigative journalism that Palo Alto Weekly does not, so far as I am aware. I would love to use the 5-page Palo Alto Weekly profile, but so far as I can see it's unobtainable. I only see it mentioned in an annual report by the group itself.) As to Holbrook's qualifications - since the economic downturn began, Metro has had cover stories by all its writers (it may have happened before then but I have only noticed it since then and suspect cost-cutting is a factor).  They have editors, and people have more than one interest; I don't see that as a reason to discount the article as a source.  Similarly, Stanford Magazine goes out to alumni worldwide and is not utterly parochial, although I know nothing about Fried and he didn't have to walk far to cover the group. I originally kept the article lean and used the two long sources to establish notability on the basis of more than one feature in an independent, reliable publication plus some national respect (it seems to me Stanford's academic reputation counts for something in allowing the Valuescience course).  Since it was challenged, I have added sources to establish that it is mentioned with some frequency in the region (one way of establishing notability) and that it has respect from the national/international community in its field(s) - that's why I added the publications by members.  The letter to the editor is there as an additional explanation of Valuescience. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional note - I just thought of the fact that I have seen Holbrook and others at Metro make the standard "full disclosure" required by journalistic ethics when they write about a company in which they have an interest or people with whom they have a connection. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Holbrook - I didn't discount his report, I just mentioned that I thought it was strange that their restaurant/food critic covered this story, as it was so far away from his usual 'beat' as it were! I am still undecided, and will consider this a bit more tomorrow, and then come back and make my !vote. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The Metro Silicon Valley (Holbrook) and Palo Alto Weekly (Rauh) primarily, but with a bit of help from the Stanford Alumni (Fried) to scrape by on general notability. I'd still like to see if Valuescience is the same Value science, because right now its lean on publications which I'd expect to see on topics so closely tied with Universities. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently sufficiently notable, though it needs a little trimming to avoid a promotional self-important  tone. After a quick read of the article,  my prejudices were very much against it, but then I examined the actual references, or at least those that were online.    DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I feel that the coverage at the Metro Silicon Valley and the Palo Alto Weekly meet the requirements for significant coverage, as both of these newspapers had an article about the organisation rather than just a brief mention. The article requires a bit of tidying up for tone, but the organisation meets WP:ORG - my 'weak' support is because of the phrase in that guideline that says On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability - however, my gut instinct is that this meets the requirements. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:09, 15 December 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.