Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Basic Research (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 redirect to Ruggero Santilli. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

=[[Institute for Basic Research]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Basic Research}}

:{{la|Institute for Basic Research}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Institute for Basic Research}})

It does not look like the article meets notability criterias. The consern regards several of the criterias, among them "Independent of the subject" and sourcing. The article is deleted for notability reasons at Norwegian wikipedia. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Ruggero Santilli. No evidence of notability on searching. -- 202.124.73.224 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • See [https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22Institute+for+Basic+Research%22+Santilli&hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&prmdo=1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=p-BjT8C2FK7ImQX70ImBCA&ved=0CBAQpwUoBQ google news] and [https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22Institute+for+Basic+Research%22+Santilli&hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&ei=8OBjT4qgC-f6mAXshoCsCA&start=10&sa=N google books]. I dont mind if this article is merged into Ruggero Santilli. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

::Those Google books links don't contribute to WP:N, because they don't discuss the IBR at all: they are simply Santilli giving his affiliation in articles. The news articles appear to (a) mention the IBR in passing when discussing Santilli, or (b) not be reliable/independent. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

: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) 00:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

: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.