Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGIC Foundation

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIC Foundation

edit
MAGIC Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources to justify the existence of this article. It was created by Imsomniac2 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account that has mainly been used to add inappropriate Magic Foundation links to Wikipedia articles. Graham87 15:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-- per nom. --E♴ (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. A quick search pulls up [1] a reference to them at the NIH, so it's clear that they exist and are not truly goofy. The site's history claims that the foundation's been around for 20 years and it looks like they have substantial operations. They're linked as a source for information from MedlinePlus, which is typically a high quality source. The article could use some work, of course, but this looks like a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a reasonable topic, but I can't find any substantial coverage in any secondary source, which is one of WP:CORP's expectations of nonprofits. From a pure WP:V standpoint, all I can verify is that they exist and are an active and major player as a support group for some fairly rare conditions. SDY (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 286 hits for the exact phrase on News, 543 hits for the exact phrase on Google Books. 100(!) hits for the exact phrase on Google Scholar. Ergo CLOSE TO A THOUSAND probable RS. I have a good mind to close this one myself.
Nom, who had evidently done exactly zero research on the subject, also deleted 16 inclusions by this article's author of links to the group in the 21 minutes between 14:30, 24 February 2011 and 14:51, 24 February 2011. MAGIC foundation specializes in treatment of all of the small group of illnesses whose articles were tagged, but removing their links was not enough. Oh, no, nom had to remove the whole External Links section, multiple times. Nom had time to slow down the pace a little and nominate this article another 12 minutes after the deletion spree.
This is exactly why Ad hominem rules like SPA and COI should be shut down like yesterday. Rationale for the true abuses that exist is already covered by default by POV RS etc rules that are their only true justification.
I also recommend edit-over-time limits to make speed bumps for admins who think they are all that but just can't find the time, somehow, to use Google Books, News, or Scholar like the rest of us mere mortals. Anarchangel (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, did you look at those sources? Here's the text from one:
  • CBL FABRICON - Girdles, now out of production
  • CBL FASHION MAGIC - Foundation garments, now out of production
It's a list of clothing manufacturers. What's that got to do with this?
Many of those sources are about magick: "a church built upon a magic foundation..." and "I decided that my earth, my special self-gathered earth, should act as a magic foundation..." and so forth.
Even the ones that are actually about this particular organization frequently say nothing more than "MAGIC Foundation's website says..." or provide a telephone directory listing. We need "significant coverage", not just a hundred passing mentions of the name.
What do you think you could say about them from WP:Independent sources?
So far as my initial search indicates, I could support statements that the group is funded by pharmaceutical companies that profit off handsomely off their frequent recommendation of expensive growth hormones to parents, and that they have a website and an annual meeting. That's not a heck of a lot of material for an article.
I think that the best option is to merge this to Short stature, in a section about pharmaceutical companies' work to have "being short" considered a disease rather than a normal variation. (If the closing admin agrees, s/he can ping me on my talk page; I'm willing to do the merge.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They seem like your average advocacy group. Sure, they probably reflecting the biases of their corporate sponsors, but if we're going to treat them as a front for pharmaceutical companies manipulating medical treatment, that's probably going a bit too far. This is apparently a quite real and influential organization that lacks the third-party coverage required for an article, and dismissing them as corporate goons is inappropriate. SDY (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the sources, Whatamidoing. Think carefully before continuing down this road. Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had already read it. I have some interesting reading for you in turn: the Google Scholar results. Maybe you'll see why I recommend them when you see them. Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is completely irrelevant when you are talking about an organization. Google Scholar is used to find out whether an individual's writings are important in the field. The MAGIC Foundation has never written a journal article. Some scholars mention or acknowledge the Foundation in their articles; that's all Google Scholar tells you. That does nothing to add to the organizations's notability.
BTW please note that my !vote above was "weak keep," based on the fact that it has received coverage by major news sources, some of which I cited above. I stand by my opinion that the article should probably be kept. However, your argument here based on counting worthless hits is doing nothing to preserve it. You would do better to spend your time adding some of those news stories to the article as references. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does any of them actually give substantial coverage? All I can find are things that mention the name, and mentions are not enough to build an article. SDY (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Okay, let's step back a little. First off, is this a spam page for a commercial concern? No, it is not, this is a certified charity. We may look cynically at donations made by interested pharmaceutical companies to this organization, we may even feel that their cause is not "just" — but the fact is that this is not a spam page for a commercial organization. There should be a different, much lower, bar set for a charity organization than for a commercial organization. Now, is this page useful? Yes, it is. Although weak, it does provide basic information on the group for Wikipedia users and point them towards additional information. There is something to be said for a page having utility, in my opinion. Now, is this organization obscure? No, it does not seem to be: see, for example, this website, "Medicine Plus," produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, which provides material produced by the MAGIC Foundation as expert background material on "Children's Growth Abnormalities: An Overview." At some point, parsing Google for "reliable sources" needs to be set aside in favor of common sense: this is a useful article about a charity which is regarded as expert on an aspect of public health by the US Government. THAT'S encyclopedia worthy, whether or not the New York Times or Time magazine has ever written a story on the group. Use common sense: Keep and improve... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Between Anarchangel's "OMG Google hits!!!" frothing at the mouth and Carrite's assertion that the provisions of the GNG and WP:CORP should be suspended if the subject is worthy enough, there's a lot of chaff here lacking verifiable substance. The core content policy of Wikipedia states, explicitly and baldly, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Show me some reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject in "significant detail," as relevant policies require; something that, for all of Anarchangel's impassioned assault on the nom, neither he nor any other Keep proponent has found and added to the article. I rather think we don't want to get into the business of suspending WP:V just because we fancy that the subjects are nice people.  Ravenswing  11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect of verifiabiity is a problem here? The organization exists... Here's what it does. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more or less per Carrite. There certainly are enough GBooks and Gnews hits to satisfy the GNG's "independent sources" requirement and demonstrate its credibility; the fact that the organization's credible descriptions of itself and its activities are the most convenient or most useful references doesn't somehow wipe out its notability. At a certain point we have to remember that the notability guideline exists is implement Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose, and that when sufficient accurate information is available to write an article about a subject that it's plausible a serious encyclopedia user would turn to Wikipedia for information, it serves no earthly to quibble about the ins-and-outs of the notability guideline. Whatever ends might be served by strictly enforcing the guideline here is outweighed, by about a billion to one, by the chance that someone seeking to aid a child suffering from one of the diseases involved, or the child's family, might come here and be directed to the organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not quibbling about notability at this point. I'm invoking WP:V, the fundamental, irreductible core content policy of the encyclopedia. At a certain point we have to remember that the onus on providing sources lies with the editors who desire to save an article; you're quite experienced enough as an editor to know the irrelevance of a "But This Might Save The Children!!!!!" argument. WP:V is not satisfied by fleeting mentions; where are the sources discussing this organization in significant detail?  Ravenswing  05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing WP:DEL with my hit counts, and the nom's failure to address BEFORE. I don't care about your characterization of me, I despise editors whose wincing and flinching at every slight, they believe will earn them Argument Points, but it does not appear as though you have seen the rationale behind my arguments. Unsourced article content may be deleted at will (a destructive and unhelpful rule), but in proposing the deletion of entire articles, even the misguided Guardians of the Sacred Byte Count (misguided because it is edit histories that take up the overwhelming majority of byte storage, not articles) have allowed that it must be proved there aren't sources (WP:DEL). I have already shown the great likelihood that there are potentially at least a thousand. This is an article that neither "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" nor, while deletors protest that there are none without actually looking, is it an article "for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Whether the subject of the article remains on Wikipedia is discussed here, and content rules are subservient to WP:DEL. Anarchangel (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is subservient to WP:DEL? That's an interesting theory unsupported by fact, as is your assertion that one must prove there aren't sources for an article to be deleted. That being said, you and the other Keep proponents have argued, at some length and with some eloquence, that such reliable sources, discussing the subject in significant detail, must exist out there somewhere. I will reiterate that it is the explicit duty of Keep proponents to provide such sources, not merely to claim they exist or to demand that Delete proponents do the work for them. My vote flips to Keep the moment someone comes up with at least two. WP:V's a very simple requirement, needing neither convoluted rationales nor in-depth rhetoric to meet.

But I don't expect you will, and here's why. Those 286 Google News hits you hotly cited as proof of the nom's laziness, for instance? I'm looking at the same list now. Of the first fifteen hits, the top hit is for an eponymous foundation in India. The second, third and eighth hits refer to the basketball player Magic Johnson's foundation. The fourth hit uses the term without reference to an organization by that name. The fifth and ninth hits refer to an eponymous foundation set up by a political candidate in North Carolina to help the homeless. The sixth and thirteenth hits refer to a "Spread the Magic" organization. The seventh, tenth, twelfth and fifteenth hits refer to a foundation set up by the Orlando Magic basketball team. The eleventh hit refers to an eponymous organization funding other charities. The fourteenth hit refers to a Holiday Magic Foundation in California ...

And this is the list you considered evidence of the nom's egregious negligence, so much so to warrant a Speedy Keep? Did you so much as glance at it yourself to judge whether the hits made any reference to the foundation in question, "Magic Foundation" seemingly being a commonly used term?  Ravenswing  23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)  Ravenswing  23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of what a bad hit is. I assume you know what probability is. I assumed readers would apply it to my statements about 1,000 hits. Why, then, do you refuse to?
DEL is the more functional rule in this case as it pertains to the matter at hand, which is deletion.
If you prefer to spend time writing assertions that there are no sources, and cherrypicking bad sources rather than checking your facts and finding good sources, then you are wasting your time, my time, and not making WP a better place. Two sources to switch? How about ten?
  1. Our Daily Meds Melody Petersen, Macmillan
  2. Normal at any cost, Susan Cohen, Christine Cosgrove
  3. George A. Giuliani, Roger Pierangelo (2006). The big book of special education resources. ISBN 9781412917100.
  4. NORD resource guide, National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Organization for Rare Disorders, 1997 - Business & Economics
  5. Dara Brodsky, Mary Ann Ouellette (January 2008). Primary care of the premature infant. ISBN 1416000399.
  6. Zara Griswold (2006). Surrogacy Was the Way: Twenty Intended Mothers Tell Their Stories. ISBN 9781933449180.
  7. Betty M. Adelson (2005-06-27). Dwarfism: medical and psychosocial aspects of profound short stature. ISBN 9780801881220.
  8. MAGIC Foundation for Children's Growth healthfinder.gov
  9. MAGIC Foundation General Organizational Information, Genetic Alliance
  10. "MAGIC+Foundation"&dq="MAGIC+Foundation"&hl=en&ei=AD6LTZubKpK-sAOqpr2nCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgU The Self-Help Sourcebook:Your Guide to Community & Online Support Groups American Self-Help Clearinghouse, Edward J. Madara, Barbara J. White
I can't access most of those sources because Google Books is not accessible to screen readers, but judging by the titles, they probably contain trivial mentions of the organisation. Graham87 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we might be able to create a perma-stub article (we know it's not a hoax). Honestly, I think it would be great if we had a list of these marginally notable organizations, but then we'd run into WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues. I know it's been raised with the List of blood donation agencies that I've messed with in the past. Do we have a list of medical advocacy groups somewhere we can merge this to? SDY (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can find quite a few trivial mentions and places this organization's staff are quoted, but I do not see any sources that could be used to write the article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused as to the exact nature of the problem and would ask for your assistance. I am a parent co-founder of The MAGIC Foundation. We have helped parents of children from throughout the world who were identified with rare medical conditions via links through Wikipedia to us. If someone could please identify what exactly is wrong, I will try to address your concerns. To the best of my understanding; links to parent friendly articles on our site, written by our physician volunteers is problematic on WP. We are, simply an advocacy group dedicated to identification, education and support to those affected. As there are numerous links to organizations throughout WP, I was unaware of any problem with reaching out to others who may need help. If I am imprpoperly responding in the discussion I apologize in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is one of Wikipedia's more confusing policies, but it more or less comes back to the question "are we sure that the content is right?" Generally we're looking for independent, reliable, and detailed coverage in a source. If we can't get enough coverage and enough perspective, we have no way to know if what we're saying is a fair or accurate, and that's really important to a good article. Are you aware of any books, newspaper articles, documentaries, reports, etc... that cover the history or operations of the foundation that were not written by someone who is part of the foundation? SDY (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have dozen archived which I can scan and make available- we rarely do them anymore because we have been in existance for so long. I can get the scans loaded to our website with the credits to the newspapers etc. Also, the television show Mystery Diagnosis has recently (in the past 4 months or so) done two shows featuring children from our organization. One of the shows did credit "us"- although because of the frequency of the two shows, the second did not. And there are other sources like ABC.com who has recently done some interviews and are coming to our international educational program this summer. How much do you need and is there a direct email address for me to send them to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one of several more recent articles which is from what would be considered legitimate news

....is online about one of our volunteers.... you can see the reference in his HUGE effort to MAGIC in this article if that helps.... http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=4665732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Excuse the sporatic response...these two links will hopefully resolve your questions.

The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services has an article on us with additional information. http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR2495.htm

Pediatric Endocrine Society only links to 17 support groups http://www.lwpes.org/patientsfamilies/patientslinks.cfm including very large and notable organizations such as the American Diabetes Assoc. and American Academy of Pediatrics. The MAGIC Foundation on that list and the physicians regularly refer to our organization.Imsomniac2 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Found an online archive from the St. Louis Dispatch Newspaper which discusses my personal story and the start up of MAGIC.

If you have access (cost/membership) you will be able to download the article for "official verification". http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=jamie%20harvey&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2000%20-%202008%7C2011%7C1988%20-%202000%7C2000&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("jamie%20harvey")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Thank you all for your help and understanding as I am not a computer expert...just a mom trying to help others facing what I have been through.Imsomniac2 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Hello, I'm the person who nominated your article about the Magic Foundation for deletion. I removed the links to the Magic Foundation website, plus other similar links, because Wikipedia's guidelines for external links in medical articles discourage links to support groups. As for the sources that you cited: the ESPN source is relatively trivial, as it focuses on Mr. Chmiel rather than the Magic Foundation. The two sources from health organisations are directories, and are not really what we're looking for (even though they're from respectable organisations). The credit in the Mysterious Diagnosis episode is probably too trivial as well ... it's not like the whole documentary would be devoted to the Magic Foundation. The St. Louis Dispatch Newspaper article is probably more like what we're after, but I can't access it, so I don't know ... but it's only one major source! Also, as the co-founder of the Magic Foundation, you have a conflict of interest in this matter. I fully support the goals of the organisation, but I don't think there should be an article about it in Wikipedia. Graham87 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discourage is not exclude. Explain your reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discourage means "exclude without a very good reason". Anyway, the actual wording straight from the guideline says "Please avoid links such as these". Graham87 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of discourage is gratuitous. Do you actually have no rationale other than resting on the part of the rule which provides no precedent in this case as though it did?
There is a part of the rule that does provide a precedent for this case, however: "If the disease is very rare, then a manageable set of charitable organisations may be of encyclopaedic interest." Anarchangel (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. But neutral editors who are familiar with Wikipedia policies (and preferably the topic at hand) should make those decisions, not people with major conflicts of interest. Graham87 15:50, 26 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MAGIC_Foundation&oldid=1298000401"