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. causa sui (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMoney Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This fringe group has some 27000 hits on google, but reliable sources seem to be lacking. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"James Turk" has over 550.000 Google hits. Including reputable sources like ReutersFT, KWN or Bloomberg.--╪ 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
— ╪ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I think within its specialized subject, this foundation is very well known and relevant. It's been referenced by pretty reputable media sources including Forbes, FT and Bloomberg. Please suggest if this article is missing anything important, but don't delete if it just needs improvement. --╪ 07:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Youtube channel by this foundation has generated about 600,000 views. It looks relevant at first sight. --Roadtoliberty (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nominator/admin note: — roadtoliberty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the sources provided do not meet the requirements for establishing notablility per WP:N. We do not have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. A number of the sources are blogs or other unreliable content. Of those that might be considered reliable, most simply mention the name of the foundation without any further information about it. Further, the "Foundation" does not even have its own website, but is a subsection of a commercial site, goldmoney.com, with the subtitle "The best way to buy gold & silver" and which entices visitors to sign up as customers. This is spam, subtle spam, but spam nonetheless. Yworo (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above, the video page is quite well populated (over 240 videos, 4 languages, over 700.000 views) as well as widely linked by hundreds of secondary sources. The videos are mostly centered on academic and historical topics. --╪ 08:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In order for the page not to be deleted, I need examples of those secondary sources that directly refer to the "Foundation"'s prominence. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of external, third party references if you bother to google, just a few examples, but there are hundreds: 1234567891011GATA121314 --╪ (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to videos created by the Foundation, self-published documents and videos may never be used to establish the notability of the publisher. Only in-depth independent third-party reliable sources can be used to establish notability. The number of documents and/or page views are not part of our general notability guidelines. Read the guidelines and satisfy them or the organization will be determined to be non-notable and the articles of non-notable organizations are deleted. Wikipedia is not here to help promote such organizations. Yworo (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful Yworo. I'm familiar with notability, thank you very much. Considering this is a very well known organisation in the sound money world, I did not imagine it would be a problem when I created this entry, especially since similar organisations like Gata or Mises Institute already have entries. I clearly underestimated the free time that some wiki guardians have on their hands. You might use some of that time helping improve articles instead of knocking them.--╪ (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is such a well-known organisation, why does it turn up zero hits in Google Scholar? I am very much convinced this is just a wackjob fringe group with no real claim to notability. I do not have that much free time -- my day job is as a biochemistry researcher -- otherwise I'd research each contested article more in depth. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google Scholar works better for biochem than for monetary history. Example: top treatise on US constitutional monetary theory? "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution" by Edwin Vieira. Last edition published by... yes the GoldMoney Foundation. Maybe the whole subject of monetary history is too fringe-y for wikipedia. Or maybe the fault lies with you. All I know is that I'm not wasting more time on this. --╪ (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Neutrality^talk 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of enough notable mentions. When I searched Google and Yahoo, I saw one mention that was even close to notable here. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to James Turk. Virtually all the references cited in the article are about Turk, and mention the foundation in passing or not at all. Google hits all go to Mr. Turk's company, goldmoney.com, rather than to this supposed foundation (which as Yworo noted above may be simply a stalking horse for the business). Literally nothing about the foundation can be found at Google News about this foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to just plain "delete". It turns out that James Turk does not currently have a Wikipedia article. The James Turk linked to in the article is a retired federal judge, not an economist. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (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.