Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesothelioma Applied Research 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. lack of consensus on WP:N/WP:ORG JForget 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation

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

Non-notable charity with no reliable sources listed and none found outside of press releases and social networking sites. TN X Man 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was previously deleted for being written like an advertisement and I recreated it with less of an advertising spin and included information on their lobbying practices. It is a notable charity within a niche community but I think that with the recent attempts to add it to mesothelioma, something odd is going on. I'll remain neutral on this. Boston2austin (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it is a notable charity, per comment above, (or it has been, but this is orthogonal to what's happening to the meso article) --Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches on any of its identities, nicknames or key people fail to provide any significant coverage or basic verification of this organization as notable. Even "niche" charities have to meet WP:N, and this one does not. Flowanda | Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mesothelioma. Racepacket (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This charity passes WP:ORG. See Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 by Noel L. Griese, as well as Asbestos : still lethal/still legal by DIANE Publishing. There are more sources, such as this article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) and 100 Questions & Answers About Mesothelioma by Harvey I. Pass. Notability is fully established, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Edit to article. Google book pages or anything with an ISBN aren't automatic keepers; they have to meet the same standards as any other reliable source. The above links provide little more than a paragraph of coverage of this subject, hardly the stuff of "significant coverage", but if they are going to be considered as reliable sources or evidence of notability, then the content they contain should definitely should be included as I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma_Applied_Research_Foundation&diff=313523093&oldid=311097860. 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 covers Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (abbreviated MARF) in significant detail. It is not solely a paragraph long. This article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) is much longer than a pargraph, so it means that the organization has received "significant coverage". Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Flowanda on this one -- Cunard, it's better next time to add the said references directly into the article by yourself. I have added the other two after Flowanda from your list and added some meta info at as well. --Mokhov (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda and Mokhov, thanks for adding the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: flagged the article for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (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.