Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wethersfield Institute (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wethersfield Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure Catholic organisation, remembered mostly for providing forums for the intelligent design movement early in its formation, rather than for anything it did in its own right -- therefore somewhat of a cipher. Little or no third-party coverage, just mainly republication of papers presented at its forums, mainly by Ignatius Press and Catholic Education Resource Center. Unclear if its is still operational. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether it is still in existence is of course irrelevant. It has published a reasonable amount of material, and there are sufficient sources DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) The fact that there is so little coverage that we cannot even tell if it is still in existence or not would appear to be highly relevant. (ii) It is whether it "has published a reasonable amount of material" or not that is irrelevant -- as it is third-party/independent coverage that matters under the guidelines. (iii) Your claim of "sufficient sources" would appear to be an unsubstantiated, bare assertion. I was the one who added the third-party sourcing to this article. The third party mentions amount to little (nothing?) more than a couple of bare mentions and the quotation of their statement of purpose in a footnote. Not sufficient third-party sources by a wide margin. Your !vote would appear to be without factual or policy basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whether this outfit has published material or not is nowhere found in any inclusion criteria. DGG, if you claim that there are reliable sources out there which discuss the institute - not its founder, not its publications - in significant detail, would you mind providing them, please? I don't see it, myself. Ravenswing 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that some one is prepared to publish the proceedings of its lecture series suggests notability to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The publishers in question, Ignatius Press and Catholic Education Resource Center, would appear to publish the Institute's proceedings out of ideological sympathy, rather than any inherent notability or merit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that any subject published by someone is notable? That's a startling assertion that certainly flies in the face of consensus in a lot of areas. Ravenswing 06:28, 17 January 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) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 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.