Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunity Project

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Project[edit]

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

looks promotional/vanity piece for a group looking for "crowdfunding" lacking any reliable sources, verification, or true notability. nice idea, I wish them luck...but Wikipedia is not a springboard to advertise for a "crowdfunded experiment" ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the public eye for 3 years; many national media refs this week. Basic notability. No need to include any link to a funding campaign. – SJ + 00:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Removed copyvio and promotional content. Significant coverage in national and international press to meet the general notability guidelines. Cindy(talk) 02:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of coverage in sources across the globe. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. The article has been greatly improved since nomination, when "promotional" was a fair description. Thank you, Cindy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Like SJ above, I also wish there was some "official website" we could link to that wasn't primarily a pledge drive. Also: I found a cautionary note at a science blog, which calls into question the project's expertise and approach, and suggests that raising money might be the ONLY thing this partnership does well.[1] However, that is an anonymous blog and not a Reliable Source. Even though the founder/CEO of the Immunity Project joined in the discussion, I doubt if any of it can be included in the article. If anyone else sees a way to add the criticism, be my guest. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (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.