Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethecon 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethecon Foundation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This organization is not notable Wikipedia:Notability. All the references cited with regard to the organization itself are blogs, many of which are broken links. Several of the references don't even link to pages resembling the reference title (e.g. reference 1, which links to a book called "What Then, Must We Do?" while the reference itself is entitled "What do Hugo Chavez, Vandana Shiva, and Diane Wilson Have In Common?"). In addition, this page violates the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. It accuses an individual person of "irresponsible marketing of baby-food, genetic engineering and the monopolizing of water.", with nothing but a link to Ethecon's blog as the reference, violating WP:BLPSPS. I suggest it be deleted. Kim.mason (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broken links and incorrect reference titles are not grounds to delete an article (Please read Wikipedia:Link rot). Have you attempted to update the links or archive them, or fix other formatting issues? Also the issue of what Ethecon hands out its 'awards' for has already been discussed on the talk page. I believe a consensus was reached that it is permissible to say why they decided to give a negative award, provided it is made clear that the reasoning is solely the opinion of the foundation. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already fixed reference 1 - the original article was simply dead and redirecting elsewhere. I've linked to an archived version of the original article instead. In the future I suggest checking whether issues than concern you can be easily resolved before nominating an article for deletion. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And now I've fixed all the references. There are no dead references, there are no references that redirect anywhere else, and many references of questionable reliability have been removed. It appears the article's main issues was actually overciting. Many recipients of awards had two or three references when they only needed one, and these were typically the sources that were the most questionable. Sure, some of the remaining sources may not be reliable (take them to WP:RSN if you like), but other sources used in the article to back up claims include The Guardian, AlterNet, Die Tageszeitung, Der Freitag, Neues Deutschland, Junge Welt and Chelsea Green Publishing. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. ––FormalDude talk 15:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gusfriend (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2022 (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.