Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weinberg 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   redirect to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor. I have redirected this for the time being as there is a good conensus that this is promotional and should not stand alone; any further information can be merged in later Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Weinberg Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ORG Non-notable organization established only last month. Article is promotional. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is about a new Weinberg Foundation in London, not the better-known "Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation" that owns real estate in Baltimore.
 * Comment I note on wired.co.uk that "The Weinberg Foundation [... is] Backed by Labour peer Baroness Worthington" and the foundation's website lists her as "the Foundation’s Patron." Regardless of the AfD outcome, should the Weinberg Foundation article be merged into her's and/or the molten salt reactor article? (which briefly mentions the foundation) -- Limulus (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge and Redirect. Founded last month. Yes, they have a press release that's been echoed in a couple of spots. Yes, they've gotten some side mentions in a couple of recent stories about thorium. Yes, I could well imagine their becoming notable in the future. But WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and is not a WP:PROMO tool, even for a good cause. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate for a freestanding article, but I agree with Limulus's suggestion to merge as a new section in Baroness Worthington's WP entry, with a redirect to that section. The foundation is part & parcel with her career, she is the "patron", and she is always mentioned or is actually providing the quotes in all its news items. It can always be broken out to a separate entry in the future, if appropriate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave as is. Notwithstanding Baroness Worthington's involvement, this seems to be more than a one-woman show. The foundation website lists three others as founders (Laurence O’Hagan, JoAnne Fishburn and John Durham) and O'Hagan is the correspondent of record for the Foundation's email. And O'Hagan is also representing the Foundation on the agenda at this year's thorium energy conference, ThEC11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpickering (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Keithpickering (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being a one-woman show isn't enough to justify having this as an encyclopedia article per our guidelines. The article from The Guardian referenced in the article is an opinion piece by an industry insider, rather than objective editorially reviewed content, and other sources that I can find focus on the use of thorium as a fuel, just mentioning this organisation in passing. Can you point to any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this organisation, rather than of the technology that it is promoting. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the Guardian article is NOT by Sorensen. If you look closely at the wording, only the video linked from the article is of him.  The article itself was by Duncan Clark, "a consultant editor on the Guardian environment desk. He has written and edited a number of books on environmental and technology topics as well as working at BBC Worldwide and 10:10." -- Limulus (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Beside being purely promotional, this fledgling organization has no accomplishments (to date) nor any claim to notability. One news article doesn't make it notable (WP:NNEWS) and the other references are not independent third-party sources. Totally fails WP:ORG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 07:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * merge to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor pending it's rise to notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete to soon; a concept can be notable without eany or every of the organizations supporting it notable. At this point there's not enough information for that.  (I agree the article is   promotional,  and it almost seems G11 territory DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect: Reading the above comments, I only see one that suggests keeping the article in place and that argues based on it being "more than a one-woman show." However, she is the only person with an article on Wikipedia predating the establishment of the foundation, which implies that she is the only 'notable' person involved in it and given the lack of actual accomplishments thus far, I am reluctant to vote for keeping it as-is. OTOH, I don't see how merging the more-or-less stub contents of this article into another (of which three good candidates have been identified... all of which actually have just about as much information about the foundation in them already!) and setting up a redirect would hurt anything, thus I strongly oppose any attempts to obliterate any mentions of the WF on WP.  I am thus voting to merge.  The only question in my mind then is to where a redirect should be set.  I favor the Baroness' article, but would be fine if it went to either of the other two. -- Limulus (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Speaking of Baroness Worthington, note that her article mentions Sandbag (non-profit organisation). Contrast a quick Google News/Archive search for 'sandbag carbon' with 'weinberg foundation thorium' and the (current) lack of notability for a stand-alone article jumps out. -- Limulus (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor until the organisation does something notable. —S MALL  JIM   22:08, 24 October 2011 (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.