Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Tradition Institute

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Tradition Institute[edit]

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

POV-article of an institue with remarkably few internet hits (about 200, including blogs and own website). Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get over 400,000 ghits with the link in this AfD. Their website is down at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the differce is coming from, but this number boils down to a mere 393 hits ([1]} Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get over 320,000 ghits on "American Tradition Institute" and over 5,100 hit on gnews. they are cited to in Nature (Science Journal), WattsUpWithThat, the no 1 science blog on the internet, and in LA Times, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, and both climate change proponents and opponents. This should be expanded rather than removed. All links are working at this time User:Justinian V4:30, 8 March 2012 (EST)

The 323.000 hits boil down to a mere 313 real hits, the rest are copies: [2] The 313 hits point, among others, to facebook, youtube and Wikipedia. GNews gives me just 59 hits. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That way of looking at Google results is even less meaningful than looking at the estimate of the total number of hits. When presenting results Google first truncates the list to a thousand hits, and then eliminates the duplicates within that thousand. This means that no search will ever actually present more than a thousand hits, and that the actual number is not correlated in any way with the importance of the search argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to several independent, reliable sources can be furnished giving significant coverage to this group. All I've been able to find so far are passing mentions in connection with litigation the group has been involved with. Most everything above is a classic WP:GOOGLEHITS discussion, and instead what is critical is the quality of the best sources that can be brought to this debate, rather than whether there are hundreds of hits or hundreds of thousands of hits. We all should know that the vast majority of Google hits on pretty much any given topic are worthless as encyclopedia references. Better by far to have three solid references than a million YouTube and Facebook mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are several pages of hits at Google News Archive, virtually none of them are from Reliable Sources. The organization's website boasts an article supposedly from the Washington Post, but it does not turn up independently in my searching, and even if it is legitimate, one source is not enough. Everything I found is from fringe, POV publications that do not qualify as Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 28 March 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.