Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunity Resource 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Resource Foundation

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

Not finding sources that they are notable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Immunity_Resource_Foundation#Awards_and_honours_.28Meditel.29 enough? Bickeyboard (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. According to the article and their website, this 'non-incorporated charity' has been loaned the archive of a company. Now that company may be notable for winning awards, but not the charity. Perhaps this is an exaggerated comparison, but if I own an award-winning book, does that make me notable, or the author? Blythwood (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that would be a merge into Continuum magazine. It has to be clear that IRF inherited the archive of Coninuum (which was notable at its time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickeyboard (talk • contribs)

The nominations for film awards show that the documentary is (possibly) notable. (I say "possibly", because those nominations look pretty minor to me – although I'm no expert in that area.) The information about the documentary says nothing at all about this foundation; the information doesn't even belong in the article about the foundation. (I've just removed it.) In Wikipedia jargon, it's called WP:NOTINHERITED.
I don't understand why anyone should care whether IRF inherited the archive of Continuum, but it's not technically necessary to merge the articles if that's the goal. You could just go write a new sentence in the article about the magazine that says something to the effect that when everyone at Continuum died from AIDS, their papers were sent to this foundation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting scams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If the article is promotional, it has to be re-written as NPOV, not deleted. Alternative views can be notable too, in the same way as Oprah Winfrey is not less notable just for promoting any crazy pseudoscience that could increase the number of viewers.Bickeyboard (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote after reviewing policy. Any content within the article can be integrated in the existing articles.Bickeyboard (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — Bickeyboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It was written as NPOV, the nomination for deletion is based on bias.Mo79 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mo79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - The article was not NPOV, and I still believe it has to be improved under this aspect. Bickeyboard (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note, for context, that Mo79 was paid to write the article we're discussing and is its principal author. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see evidence of notability. In addition, this organisation describes its purpose as providing "information base on the Scientific and Medical Issues challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis" - i.e. HIV/AIDS conspiracy theories, making it also WP:FRINGE (so it would need a major rewrite to make that clear even if it was kept), but notability is itself enough to make me vote delete. Blythwood (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - charities in the UK are regulated by the Charity Commission - search its site (I don't think I can link the entry) and it says "removed-ceased to exist". Some of their older financials are listed here. So it's an ex-charity, which did a negligible amount of activity. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update - the Charity Commission info is here -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they don't seem to be prominent or notable enough AIDS denialists so as to require an article. - Nunh-huh 18:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They deny AIDS thoroughly, isn't that prominent?Bickeyboard (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's ignorance. What makes something (even ignorance) prominent is that it is a subject widely covered by reliable well-regarded media: newspapers, magazines, books, etc. "Immunity Resource Foundation" is not widely covered by reliable well-regarded media, which is how Wikipedia determines notability. - Nunh-huh 18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete no reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) This is actually the nominator himself. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did not realize that one was not supposed to nominate and weight in Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia under WP:ORG, it must be possible to find at least two unrelated, independent reliable sources that provide "significant coverage" of the organization (NB not about documentaries that were made before the foundation's creation, or sources about the relationship between HIV and AIDS, etc.) – and at least one of those reliable sources needs to be from something other than a neighborhood newspaper (under WP:AUD). I'm thoroughly familiar with the guideline, and I'm pretty good at searching for sources. I've come up completely empty handed. I encourage the creator to read the second paragraph at WP:BFAQ#WHY and explain to his/her client that without sources about the foundation itself, it's not possible to have an article about the organization itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perhaps misleading as it is not a charity (charities in the UK have to be registered so you cant have a non-incorporated charity). The charities commission say it ceased to exist. At best a non-notable campaign group. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2015 (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.