Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Thought and Ethics

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. Sandstein 21:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Thought and Ethics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article; only finding passing mentions in various searches. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is being used as a WP:COATHANNGER for an attach on Intelligent design. The theory that the universe has a designer cannot be proved, any more than the rival theory (atheism) that there is no God. Any claim that science can prove atheism is equally pseudo-scientific. Its argument is circular, as the conclusion is actually among its assumptions. I do not know this organisation and thus whether it is notable or not, but Intelligent designis a widely held belief and WP cannot dismiss it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:COATRACK. StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are 60+ results on newspapers.com about the organization, which may be used to improve the article (which is poor in its current state).[1] In the meantime, the article could/should be stubbified. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable organization based on coverage available, even if the article could use a major rewrite. Involved in a high-profile court case that found ID to be religion and not science. I'm not opposed to WP:TNT, but we should definitely have an article on the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Anachronist. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources are weak and do not show that this org pass GNG requirements. While creationism is notable not all organizations related to it are notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 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.