Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Venturism


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Society for Venturism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though at first glance extremely-well-sourced, this article in fact is not. Sources are either affiliated with the subject, have no bearing whatsoever on the gist of the article, or are otherwise biased or unreliable. Notability is definitely not established by outside sources. The only reliably-sourced episode covered by the article, regarding a woman named Kim Suozzi, does not directly relate to the article subject. dci &#124;  TALK   01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources based on news publications are not the only ones that are reliable. The cryonics and transhumanist organization websites, publications, and news groups are reliable unless you consider cryonics an unworthy subject. Wikipedia has an entry on cryonics as well as many entries on cryonics organizations. Cryonics organizations are part of modern life, and should be covered by Wikipedia. --Ben Best 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not deny that cryonics is a perfectly notable field. However, pages of organizations related to a particular subject do not ascertain the particular subject's notability.  For example, the Catholic Church article would be in trouble if it relied entirely on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.   dci  &#124;  TALK   01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That analogy does not apply in this particular case. Along with sources outside the fields of cryonics or transhumanism, the article contains citations from a wide variety of transhumanist and cryonics organization websites and newsgroups. Your analogy would be more like the Catholic Church article citing references from a wide variety of Christian organizations and newsgroups. --Ben Best 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep:I don't see the problem. If there are issues with the sources, start a discussion on improving them.  Marking it for deletion 15 minutes after it was created implies it is considered spam which is certainly not the case.  I follow cryonics issues and this society has existed for years and has been in the news recently.  I didn't look much at the listed sources, but they certainly exist...give people a chance to add them.  Also Kim Suozzi does relate...as the article states, she was recently cryopreserved because of funds raised by the society. Symmetric (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not a Venturist, but have been keeping a close eye on them for, oh, half a year or so. I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles with worse sourcing. If the deletionist feels the multiple non-Venturist sources in this article are insufficient, then the obvious solution isn't to delete the whole article, it's to add more sources. DataPacRat (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am not a contributor to the Venturists at the moment, and I can see that the monetarisation of this organization can raise some hackles. However suppression of this page removes an unbiased source of information about this group which means that people are less able to make informed choices about the Venturists. Surely it is better for people to be fully informed before they spend money, rather than do it out of some form of religious fervor. -- John de Rivaz 10:52, 11 February 2013 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Rivaz (talk • contribs)


 * Keep: My name is Mark Plus, and I am the Secretary of the Society for Venturism. The Society for Venturism is a real organization which was incorporated in the State of Arizona in 1986, and it is still in good standing in that state, which you can confirm by searching the organization's name at the website http://www.azcc.gov/. One of the the founders of the Society, Arizona businessman David Pizer, was also profiled in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago regarding his cryonics activism and his reanimation trust: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113780314900652582.html The Society's work has been covered in the national news lately in connection with the cryopreservation of the cancer victim Kim Suozzi, and it deserves an accurate entry in Wikipedia describing its principles and activities for people who want to learn more about it. Advancedatheist (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above keep !votes do not establish why the article ought not to be deleted.  First, the sources on the article really aren't reliable.  Yahoo posts about Toronto's Bedford Day parties and wikis, postings, and articles from affiliates of this organization are not considered in line with WP policy.  As for the argument stating that an appropriate analogy is the Catholic Church article being sourced by other denominations' webpages, these, too, would not be considered reliable.  Basically, this article needs sources from a well-established source not affiliated with the Society of Venturism or its affiliates in the cryonics movement, and clear indications that the topic has garnered sufficient notability.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are innumerable news stories about Kim Suozzi's charitable cryopreservation, which I feel would satisfy 'sufficient notability' all by themselves - just do a Google News search and pick one. Here's just one, from io9: http://io9.com/5977640/23+year-old-kim-suozzi-undergoes-cryonic-preservation-after-successful-fundraising-campaign . Given that notability is established with at least one news report, fixing the remaining problem you raise appears to be more a matter of improving the sources than deleting the whole article; so instead of flagging it for deletion, it could be flagged for clean-up and better sources. Our disagreement seems to be about whether a crowdsourced charitable cryo-preservation is 'notable' - and if you feel that it isn't, I don't see us being able to come to any sort of agreement. DataPacRat (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I am arguing about. In fact, a reliably-sourced article about Kim Suozzi and others who have taken similar actions would likely meet notability and other inclusion guidelines.  My concern is the topic of the article - the society itself, whose notability is not ascertained by the current sources.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The SoV has started another charity for another potential cryo-preservation patient, the author of 'Drupal Multimedia' ( http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/open-source-software-developer-terminal-illness-hopes-opt-out-death ). Given that the SoV is the only one doing such charities, why not simply collect such stories in the SoV page? DataPacRat (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, the problem is that none of the sources are reliable. Adding more content with similar sources doesn't help.  Please don't take this as a disparagement of the hard work it takes to put forth an article, but merely laying out problems with this particular subject's inclusion and its article's sourcing.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "none of the sources are reliable" is an unsubstantiated anti-cryonics bias on your part. The Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation all have entries on Wikipedia, so how can they be unreliable sources? CRYONET and NEW CRYONET are established cryonics blogs not affiliated with any cryonics organization. BIOLOGY RESOURCES ONLINE is not even a cryonics organization. --Ben Best 06:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How about, instead of looking for sources that are notable for any particular detail about the SoV, we just look for at least one notable source about the SoV's sheer existence? Would that io9 article I linked to above be sufficient for that much? DataPacRat (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While I respect your resolve to find good sources for the article, what's really needed is something that explains notable actions done by the organization, not just involvement in one particular case that happened to garner widespread coverage.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that, so far, the organization could be considered to be involved in about one and a half notable actions so far... Would some combination of http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/09/terminally-ill-woman-seeks-help-to-get-cryogenically-frozen.html, http://www.metafilter.com/119656/Waiting-For-A-Cure , http://www.kbia.org/post/missouri-girl-undergoes-cryopreservation , http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ydsy5/reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_in_dying_young_im/ , or http://lesswrong.com/lw/e5d/link_reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_im_dying_young/ suffice for third-party coverage? DataPacRat (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not confident that these remedy the situation; I will address this further tomorrow.  dci  &#124;  TALK   04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to BenBest's comment above: please understand that I have no bias whatsoever regarding cryonics, and if I did, it would likely be in favor of it. My concerns have to do with the quality and reliability of the references you have used.  They are not third-party, unaffiliated coverage that demonstrates that this organization has firmly established notability.  Blogs, while not in and of themselves unreliable, have to meet fairly high standards of professionalism to be claimed as RS.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do not have an anti-cryonics bias, you are making the same mistake in lumping-together and discrediting cryonics organizations that an anti-Christian would make in lumping-together and discrediting Christian organizations. Your misperception has the appearance of bias, even if it is not bias. The Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church are no less distinct than the Society for Venturism, Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation &mdash; and, indeed, some of those organizations are not only distinct, but competitors. Blogs are not necessarily the same as discussion groups. Blogs are often postings of a single person, whereas the discussion groups I referred-to (CRYONET and NEW CRYONET) represent forums allowing many participants. While not as authoritative as cryonics organizations, the discussion groups are nonetheless independent from the cryonics organizations and from each other. (NEW CRYONET replaced CRYONET, and operates under a distinct technology, and is more moderated than CRYONET was.) --Ben Best 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest all who have commented above carefully review Identifying reliable sources. This covers blogs and other self-published sources (a category under which a Yahoo discussion group would fall).  Also, please note that I am not trying to discredit the subject of the article in any way.  I do not believe the subject has received nearly enough coverage in reliable sources to attain notability.   dci  &#124;  TALK   21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've listed a set of sources which are far from mere 'blogs' or discussion groups - Io9, the CBC, a radio station. These three, at least, seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable/secondary sources - and even if only those three of what I listed qualify, that's because I didn't think I'd need to skim further down the 100,000 Google search results ( https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q="society+for+venturism"+-site%3Aventurist.org+-site%3Aventurist.info+-site%3Awikipedia.org ). DataPacRat (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cryonics organizations and their publications are not "blogs".--Ben Best 03:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be pure WP:FRINGE; the sources appear to be entirely within that fringe world, and the keep reasons appear to be WP:ITSUSEFUL even where lack of WP:NOTABILITY is accepted. It is difficult to see how anything other than delete could reasonably result under WP policy, though perhaps a merge to Cryonics would work.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that cryonics is WP:FRINGE is mistaken. You could find scientists who claim that cryonics cannot work, but you could also find many reputable scientists who say that it could work. Cryonics is not the Flat Earth Society. Cryonics is controversial, but that is not the same as being fringe. The Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics includes such notables as Marvin Minsky and L. Stephen Coles. I suggest that you look at my paper Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice. A witchhunt against cryonics should not single-out the Society for Venturism while Wikipedia has many organizations and people under the Category:Cryonics.--Ben Best 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Heavily self-sourced and rather promotional in tone. I favor a low bar for new religious movements, however, and this comes close to clearing a lite application of GNG from sources showing. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all from either High Beam or Questia... An exact Google search pulls over 39,000 hits, which would seem to indicate a decent chance of finding something. Looking... Carrite (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the organization's activity fundraising for a terminally ill woman in a 2012 LOCAL CBS AFFILIATE NEWS REPORT. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The preservation of that woman's head MADE THE NEWS IN THE UK. Does that count towards notability of the subject organization? Barely if at all, but it does indicate that people might be apt to search WP for information on that organization... Carrite (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing much that counts towards GNG... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The following link appears to show a coordinated effort to get "keep" votes here.  I don't want to appear antagonistic, but I am not confident this is the most appropriate way to go about discussion.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment as Review - For what its worth, I upgrade my recommendation to Strong Keep. The claim that "none of the sources are reliable" cannot be justified given the many news organizations that covered the Kim Suozzi story. The stories were not simply about Kim Suozzi, they identified the Society for Venturism as the charitable organization that spearheaded raising money to pay for Kim Suozzi's cryopreservation. For   dci  to imply that the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church are not independent because they are all Christian defies belief. Those organizations may all believe in Jesus Christ, but that does not mean they are "affiliated". Similarly, the Society for Venturism, the Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation all believe that cryonics can work, but that does not mean they are affiliated -- the organizations are independent.--Ben Best 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Carrite covers that in one of his comments. Sure, the Kim Suozzi cryopreservation is notable; I'm not contesting that.  But one notable, well-covered event does not mean that the subject is notable, nor does it address the article's current sourcing troubles.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, found nothing outside of the Kim Suozzi case. Not enough to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 06:58, 23 February 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.