Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stable Isotope 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 delete. The debate established that the sources provided are not independent; please note that the existence of another Wikipedia article does not constitute an argument to keep this one; we do not work by precedent. Chick Bowen 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stable Isotope Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, still does not meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Also, we do not wait for something to become notable, it must be notable first. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article claims The SIF is notable since it supports a peer reviewed scientific journal, supports ongoing research projects, raises funds for stable isotope research, and provides grant funding for stable isotope research across several disciplines. However, the journal has never been published and is only soliciting contributions at this time. I also can't find any lists of those awarded grants. Finally, this article appears to be created and edited by a single purpose account. I think it's an honest effort by someone affiliated with the Foundation to publicize its existence. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with all above, and articles that contain text arguing their subject's notability seem to be self-referential in a sense, as well as clutching at straws. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Lich, a modern undead creature, has a wikipedia page. This defies my concept of notability, however, I would not go out of my way to tag the Lich article. From the scientific organizations on Wikipedia I surveyed, 30-50% do not have any references, or are only self-referential. e.g. the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. I am not and would not recommend tagging their article, even though it has zero references, and no evidence it exists. It's just an example. At least the subject SIF article provides a reference that the foundation actually exists, which is more than some others. The subject non-profit has not sought publicity, however it is performing research, which may be notable by itself. The site provides mathematical proof which suggests unstable isotopes in human DNA is a source of spontaneous genetic mutations, and is illuminating a research path which provides a potentially promising new approach to cancer prevention, which is currently killing about 25% of people now. That seems notable to me, even more so for a non-profit. That's more than I can say for the Lich. I would argue to keep the notability tag for now, but not to delete the article at this point. --Fisad (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (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.