Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samueli Institute


 * 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 redirect to Henry Samueli. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Samueli Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Sources are poor with close ties to the organization. An additional search turned up no reliable, third-party sources to substantiate notability. Organization is best known for promoting homeopathy and other alt-med. Delta13C (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. One high-quality source, anyway: A lengthy, detailed, balanced 2005 Washington Post article about the Institute: .  There are other sources that describe the Samuelis' philanthropy in more general terms, and an option might be to selectively merge and redirect this to the discussion of its well-known founder's philanthropic activities in the health sector at Henry Samueli.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect without merging to Henry Samueli. The article as currently written is promotional boosterism and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.--Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as this seems questionably solid for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think redirect is the appropriate outcome here. Delta13C (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2016 (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.