Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Basic Research

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 weak keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Basic Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

At best, this institute is a vanity press for Ruggero Santilli (also nominated), at worst. The information presented has some serious problems with Wikipedia:Attribution; its information seems to come only from itself. Its notability is at best, "notoriety" due to its links to extreme fringe science and highly questionable research. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ATT and probably WP:N Alf^Photoman 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATT is not a criteria for deletion. — Omegatron 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry meant WP:A... Alf^Photoman 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like a neutral article about this organization. — Omegatron 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep The organization is noteworthy enough (though in my opinion as a source of confusion) that an article is warranted. So is a rewrite, to indicate that the work it sponsors is--speaking generally--fringe science. (I assume that is what the previous ed. also intends). I also suggest renaming to a less generic title. However, since it has had no stable ___location, I'm having a hard time thinking of one. I wishitwerenttrue that such fringe science exists, but it does. DGG 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, after seeing both opinions above I decided to check it out a little closer and concluded that both Omegatron and DGG assessed the situation right Alf^Photoman 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.