Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

Vanity article about unnotable pseudoscience web organization with no reliable secondary sources Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any decent sources (hits seems mainly to be about their annual 'awards', but there isn't coverage in reliable sources), no news hits either. The whole organisation looks slightly odd. It is stated on the website to be at the 'University of Pecs' in Hungary, when the article says it is a British organisation, and I can't find any reference to it on the University website. Quantpole (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources at all that I can find; only blog discussions etc by those connected with the group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up blogs, Youtube, etc, but nothing that meets our criteria. I see that despite the address in Hungary the website says 'The Academy is based in Croydon'. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion

I am getting totally confused the meaning of this magic word Notability here. Why are you pushing this so hard? There are hundreds of article without any google hits. On the other hand why is the google is the judge in notability issues by chasing hits?

Answering to Quantpole who has been so kind to check up on Hungary but must be accidentally missed this page [[1]] I pretty much believe this address can qualify as British: Airport House, Purley Way, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 0XZ UK.

I would like to use this guidance in our case Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

1. As above mentioned Hungary and UK can be considered as international scale of activity, hopefully in your eyes as well.
2. Notability: I believe you are missing an important part. This is not about the organisation on the google, this is about the absolutely stunning minds at this organisation. They are helping and supporting each other within the framework of this Academy. We are still actively working on building up the article but you make this almost impossible to finish. Wikipedia seems very far from its principle as The Free Encyclopedia

As you have found the awards. I also would like to ask you to devote some time and check who are those people at the award ceremony. I believe you can find some reliable person including Nobel laureate winners and so on.

This is a quote from the above page, I would like to ask you think about the highlighted parts: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Why is this massive fight against this organisation? Where does it come from? This is a non profit organisation which has absolutely no political or commercialise goals. Devoting massive amount of money from private sources to support scientists from all over the world. I believe none of you have read the aims and goals section of the article.

I would like to address you: Why Wikipedia treats us like criminals? Is it really a crime that we are lack of some google sources. So to make it simple no matter how much good this Academy can provide to the whole world, and to the science world without this current third party issue the Academy has to be deleted??? Why?

I am absolutely sure you could make this page stay. It is just a matter of point of view. I need you think about outside the box. If you want to you can let this article to evolute into a great Wikipedia article but we need more time. Please do not bother to answer unless you do not use your third party sources google wildcard.

Thank you for your time --Webmaster6 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of the first person plural "we" and "us" reflects that you are closely associated with this institute, correct? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definition of notability and word as used in Wikipedia jargon are different. From WP:Notability, "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Also from the sub-article on organizations, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." In effect, this means that it doesn't matter how notable the people are who are in the organization, the organization by itself must be satisfy notability requirements. Practically, the effect of the rule is that in order to demonstrate notability, reliable, independent secondary sources about the subject must be found. Find those, and this article should pass the deletion.

Reliable, independent secondary sources are important. For one, they prove the subject exists and is what it claims to be. People make stuff up, going so far as to create fake webpages, blog entries, etc. to give the illusion that something exists. Without reliable, independent secondary sources, how is anyone going to know if this organization is in fact real? Another purpose of the notability rule is to keep Wikipedia from filling up with articles about every person's cat or school club. You are going to need to prove that "outsiders," i.e. people or organizations, preferably notable themselves, who are not part of this organization have cared enough about it to write something about it: that way they serve as reliable, independent, secondary sources. It may just be that the organization currently hasn't attracted enough attention so the sources don't exist yet. When the organization has attracted some attention and there are reliable, independent, secondary sources to prove it, recreate the article and cite them. Until then it will be deleted. Sifaka ^talk 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. You put this parent child topic relationship in a very strange angle for me. In my interpretation an Academy is an intangible asset. The Academy is nothing without its members. How you can describe an organisation without its individuals. I believe it is nonsense. We can prove every single member of the Academy as a reliable source. For example

Franco Selleri [2].
From China, Chen-I-Wan [3]
Michael Duffy, he is the organizer of one of the most important conferences that has taken place eleven times at Imperial College, London and now extended to Moscow Technical University (Bauman) and to the Calcutta Mathematical Society . See [4]
Lawrence Paul Horwitz [5]

The Academy can provide thousands of publication by the members but we need more time. All I am asking why cannot you just put on the tag this article cites few sources please improve it??

The Academy has got associated institutes on an international scale, absolutely independent reliable secondary sources. What is the reason that Wiki cannot except that? Why can be the Academy on the Hungarian wikipedia without even a single problem?

I would like to ask you to tailor the WP:Notability rule for this case as a non profit organisation and share with me only that part that applies here. I think this parent child topic does not apply in this case. I need to know what would satisfy the notability rule, by examples? What kind of article or information that you are looking for on the google about this Academy? Please give me some concrete examples that you would accept. Thank you for your cooperation. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, the academy is nothing without its members then there is no need for an article on it: articles on its notable members would be quite sufficient. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are not able to answer my questions at least do not twist my words. I came here for help and do not assume any wild or nonsense thoughts. Just think for one minute if these "notable" minds are formed an Academy what they are capable of. It is definitely worth to notice. I am certain I can get your information but I do not know what you need. Thank you. --Webmaster6 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources and searching yields no potential (as noted above). Also what's with the music on the homepage? That isn't helping at all. meshach (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]