Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kavli 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 -- JForget 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kavli Foundation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously speedied as copyvio, it was restored after we received a permission for text. However, it's still of dubious notability, and is far from our standards, so I brought it here for community to decide if it's worth inclusion. Max S em(Han shot first!) 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jcohenkavli Until now, the only concern was copyright permission; this is the first mention of any other issue ("dubious notability" "far from our standards"). If I correctly understand the nature of these remarks, I do wish to assure you the material is accurate and the characterization of the foundation's work correct. One way to confirm this is by reviewing the many independent profiles of The Kavli Foundation, prizes and Mr. Kavli. Here are three in-depth profiles published by well-known independent news sources -- Time Magazine, The New York Times, and The Associated Press  Jcohenkavli 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't write these links here, add them to the article. Max S em(Han shot first!) 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jcohenkavli Thanks for the suggestion. Links have been added. Jcohenkavli 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Daniel  07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs sources properly integrated, though juicy sources are listed at bottom. Quatloo (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over. With these sources I'm sure a reasonable article could be written, but an encyclopedia article should not be based on the organization's self-description on their website.  Mango juice talk 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but it certainly wouldn't hurt to reduce it to a stub and let someone rewrite it from the sources. Seems like this guy is handing out a lot of cash, and spreading it around - I would say it is notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources definitely establish notability, and most of the information in the article seems to be factual and uncontroversial, so we shouldn't just throw it away. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as Modified , but as said above it needed drastic editing, and I have done some. The problem with copies from organisation's websites is more than copyvio--they are also almost always not really right for an encyclopedia. there was no need, for example,  to explain at length that the Institute of Nanoscale science would sponsor nanoscale science, and go on to describe what the general subject entails--that's PR talk, not encyclopedic content. And the NYT article in the references --with the others listed -- is certainly enough to shown notability. DGG (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (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.