Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeMinds


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

SafeMinds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has had a notability tag on it for half a decade now, and I wanted to see if it would survive AfD. Furthermore, this organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG. We should probably merge it into Thimerosal controversy. Jinkinson (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (as I'm not seeing what there is that would be constructive to merge). A look at the article's references illustrates the WP:ORG problem.  Aside from a rather thorough drubbing given by a science blogger, there just isn't anything (beyond the organization's own websites) that offers commentary and coverage about this organization, instead of merely mentioning it.  And heck, there's only four outside news articles offered up that even mention its existence.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Although the organization has been mentioned once or twice by Reliable Sources, including the New York Times (cited in the article), there is nothing approaching the significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources required to pass WP:ORG. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that there is insufficient content in the article for a merge; the article mostly consists of information about the founders and officers, none of whom are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I expected to be able to find enough coverage for this one, but the sourcing is awfully thin and on balance I think there is not enough to support an article. There is an element of "blog famous" and several mentions from within the walled garden, but nothing that I can unambiguously say kicks this over the WP:ORG threshold. The web of board memberships and primary contributorships blurs the line for "independent" coverage, and puffery from ideologically-aligned organizations is anyway pretty low on the list of usable sources. I was expecting more coverage related to the failed AMC ad buy (notability is not temporary, after all), but no such luck. They show up on those charity transparency sites, but those can be essentially autogenerated from publicly available tax documents; their fundraising activities should be added if we keep the article, but this does not establish notability. SafeMinds has an accomplishments page, but it can essentially be summarized as "we issued press releases, engaged in outreach, and supported our board members". - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed, there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources that mention this organization more than in passing to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:59, 20 September 2013 (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.