Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumer Education 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) 07:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Education Foundation[edit]

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

This is academic/nonprofit spam, with no sources but lots of spam links. Creating by promotional WP:SPA accounts that have done nothing but add industrial waste like this into our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One link is to the WaybackMachine. The others do nothing to confer notability. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A link to the Wayback Machine should be evaluated on whether the original link was to a reliable source. In this case, the original link was to an article in the San Diego Union Tribune, a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source perhaps, but it dosn't make this subject notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, can you clarify: you are suggesting that the article should be kept because of one passing mention in a local newspaper (though actually I think that article may originally have come from the Chicago Tribune)? Where do you see significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and "is more than a trivial mention"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the whole picture of which this page is a part is laid out at COIN here at "Academic promotion from Cornell Food and Brand Lab". Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Brian Wansink, whose dubious research results have surely made him amply notable. I've edited the page and removed a good deal of unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about just merging and redirecting as I did a few of the related articles, but there is no point to a redirect. This foundation is utterly un-notable and I doubt there would even be an article if not for people apparently from the lab creating it. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Brian Wansink. scope_creep (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One real source does not make something notable. Natureium (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the two references is an interview with Brian Wansink in the San Diego Union Tribune. It's not a problem that it's via the WaybackMachine, but the interview mentions the article subject very much in passing; so much so that the interviewer states, "With characteristic modesty, he [Wansink] failed to mention that, in 1999, he founded the Wansink Consumer Education Foundation". That is the entire mention of the CE foundation: the interviewer making the point that the foundation was not mentioned during the interview. I don't have access to the other reference offered, an unlinked article from the Omaha World-Herald. If the paper's archives are not online (which seems likely from their website), perhaps the editor who added the reference could put a relevant quote in the footnote? But unless that's a lot better (source-wise) than the Tribune interview, I stand by my "Delete". No depth of coverage. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 23 March 2018 (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.