Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wethersfield 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wethersfield Institute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: fails to meet WP:ORG. Apparently defunct (no website, no apparent publications since 2001) organization that only garnered a few, very brief and insubstantial, mentions in sources even when it was in existence, and whose profile it appears was so low that nobody noticed its demise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a listing of what little the cited sources have to say on the topic on talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some evidence that this organisation, and its lecture-series, still exists. However there's no evidence that those after 2001 were published (and thus little likelihood that these latter series had any prominence). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve – an organisation which sponsored, and is apparently still sponsoring, lectures on various aspects of apologetics by experts including Stanley Jaki, R. V. Young and William A. Marra, including both sides of the creation-evolution controversy. The article gives useful clarification of the nature of the institute when presented in the title of books published up to 2001 which are still currently on sale. . dave souza, talk 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions: (i) Has this 'sponsorship' evoked significant coverage (per WP:ORG)? ( ii) Have we any evidence that it is "apparently still sponsoring" these events (given the lack of any apparent publication in the last 8 years)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is sufficiently notable, as recent additions to the article show. I should also point out that the nom has been targeting for deletion articles created by the person who created this one, often on specious grounds it seems to me. This behavior is unacceptable. Odd nature (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the most recent discussions that Odd Nature is talking about, WP:Articles for deletion/Leadership University (web portal) & Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns both, far from finding my nominations to be "spurious", endorsed them. I would suggest it is this unfounded accusation that is "unacceptable", and that both Odd Nature and "the person who created this one" should pay closer attention to article talk -- where I gave ample warning that I had questions over the notability of the topic & later that I intended to nominate it for deletion. I would further point out that none of the "recent additions to the article" are third-party, so they do nothing whatsoever to establish that the topic meets WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (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.