Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuselah 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 no consensus. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah Foundation[edit]

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

Seems to me to fail WP:ORG. Only trivial media mention was a regional BBC piece about the prize for making the oldest mouse. Seemed to be more of a puff-piece than actual interest in the organization. Notability, I submit, has simply not been established for this organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding some stuff that they have done, but not significant in depth coverage by reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous media mentions, some of which are in the references. Also here [1] and here [2], this might be relevant [3]. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure which media mentions you are referring to beyond the BBC stuff I discussed. That Wired magazine article doesn't seem to me to do the trick, if for no other reason than it seems to be more about the personality of the founding organizer rather than the organization itself. The other puff-piece from the LA TV station and the fact that the Maalox president gave them money doesn't really establish them as notable, in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I checked them more closely, they are not too specific. Regarding funding, the fact the funding is reported, as in here [4] makes the funding notable.

I looked in google news, and there seem to be quite a lot of references, albeit mostly passing, to the Methuselah Foundation from 2009 as against previous years. Here's one, for example, which has five paragraphs covering the Foundation. [5]

This is a fairly substantial reference. [6]

Here's a reference to the Mprize, specifically, in Time, in the context of amortality as 'an idea changing the world'.[7] Seems sufficient in aggregate to me. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it. The Times article and the Time magazine article are about the Mprize, which I think are both "News of the Weird" characters though it is debatable. In any case, the Mprize is not the Methuselah Foundation. The article from the ASU newspaper is indeed a bit more substantial, but reads a bit amateurish and is difficult for me to take seriously. In any event, I'm willing to admit that the notability is borderline, but I would default to delete simply because many of the proposed sources are so problematic in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous mentions in the media, and probably the most organization of the "anti-aging" movement. Definetaly meets WP:N Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Aubrey de Grey or David Gobel. The few independent reliable sources given don't discuss the foundation except to give it passing mention. Coverage isn't significant enough at this time to have its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Methuselah mouse prize (Mprize) has received a lot of reliable coverage, and is organised by the Methuselah foundation. So even though the foundation might be marginally notable, the prize that it organises isn't. See for instance here [8] - several dozen references in reliable sources. Keep 194.150.121.97 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LuckyLouie. Although occasionally mentioned, the organisation doesn't seem to have stand-alone notability and appears to be just one of a number of related Wikipedia articles that have come a bit too close to promotional for my taste. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in sources like The Times, Wired, New Scientist, Popular Science, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (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.