Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price-Pottenger Nutrition 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. Problems with neutrality, sourcing and article duplication can be solved through regular editing and/or merging. No prejudice against speedy renomination if there are valid concerns about the organisation's notability. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This organization has a page under its previous name. Should we rename that page and redirect the old name to the new? It is not good practice to have both of these pages running independently. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is something odd here, not to be sorted out at AfD. The original name, presumably from 1952, was Weston A. Price Memorial Foundation which changed its name in 1969. I cannot find an article under this original name. There is an article about Weston A. Price Foundation which says it was founded in 1999 and still exists. So far as I can see they are different organisations. Thincat (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the rationale for deletion should be clarified. However, the article as sourced should at least be stubbed until sources demonstrating it's notability are provided and used to prevent the article from being written only from their own press. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge/redirect the old. While the article could use more references and some general clean-up appearance-wise (i.e., the lede is too verbose), it looks pretty solid otherwise.--Mike18xx (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2012 (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.