Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetics Policy Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Genetics Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this WP:ORG notable? They surely put out a bunch of press releases, but I wasn't able to find much else... The related article on Bernard Siegel (not surprising created & edited by the same set of SPAs) has a bunch of claims of importance, all of them vaguely referenced to two books. My impression is that of the two entities Siegel is more notable than his org, which is basically indistinguishable from him in those stories and mentioned less often. A bunch of contents in this article, especially towards the end, seems related only very strenuously related to this org. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They got one brief mention in Wired in 2004 [1], but that's about it for non-press-release material. --John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like the others here, I could not find significant coverage of this organization by independent reliable sources. I was going to suggest a redirect/merge to Bernard Siegel but I found his notability rather dubious as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Siegel has more coverage in Eve Herold's book [2]. Herold actually wrote most of the Wikipedia article on GPI and that on Siegel. But she was associated with the GPI herself at the time, at least that's what I gathered from her 2006 appearance on The Daily Show. [3] (Very boring, by the way.) I see you discovered that yourself from another source [4]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I found it hard to be impressed by a chapter in her book devoted to praising her boss! --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Siegel has more coverage in Eve Herold's book [2]. Herold actually wrote most of the Wikipedia article on GPI and that on Siegel. But she was associated with the GPI herself at the time, at least that's what I gathered from her 2006 appearance on The Daily Show. [3] (Very boring, by the way.) I see you discovered that yourself from another source [4]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I can't find any significant coverage of this group by independent reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 29 September 2012 (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.