Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Freedom 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. Michig (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Freedom Foundation

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

wp:promotion ap:aboutself Darkstar1st (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot see any notability for organisation itself: people who work for it maybe, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Its essentially a puff piece.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probable keep~~ I'm going to take a swing at sourcing this. Before I do, I want to make it clear that this foundation appears to represent a radical ideology, one in which inhaling extreme ideological purity appears to make participants lose touch with reality. Distasteful as some of the ideas espoused by this Foundation may be, if the organization exists and has a budget, a paid staff, it probably passes notability as an organization. And if it can be sourced, then it passes WP:GNG. No matter how distasteful or "fringe" some editors find it. Plus, frankly, I like to have 'em listed right here were folks can look 'em up and see what they stand for and who they stand with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentThe 2nd paragraph of the lede states "The foundation communicates its message to the public by means of.... Op-Ed pieces published in more than 800 newspapers in the United States and Latin America." While I can't vouch for the #800, but a quick search turned up a very long list of newspapers - some major - that publish Hornberger's op-eds with FFF as his credential.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little sourcing. This outfit holds conferences, appears to have a budget, ~~I think it's a keeper.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete reflecting on how little independent coverage I found, and the fact that overwhelmingly what comes up is the name as the organization in Hornberger's byline, the more inclined I am to think that it fails WP:ORGSIG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 03:30, 26 March 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.