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. Whilst there may be an article to be written here (and you would have thought with the names apparently associated with the establishment that there should be some notability), the closing comments appear to be correct; the article still contains no third-party sources to establish its notability. As usual, I will userfy if anyone wishes to make at attempt at this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science[edit]

International Academy of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

as below from nom

The corresponding article has been deleted from the german wikipedia. Since it is a mostly german/austrian organization, simple logic suggests that it in not relevant in the international context either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabel (talk • contribs)

• German wikipedia AfD.
• I suggest that we at the English wikipedia make up our own minds on this based on a proper proposal for deletion, rather than expecting us to go to the German wikipedia and read their reasoning in a language many of us do not understand. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I think that it is at least a reason to restart the deletion discussion. ;-) Not sure what your further comments mean (I am rather a newbie here). Please tell me if I made a mistake! Thank you.

I could not find any objective, trustworthy source that says that the IAS is a genuine, important group. Please correct me if I am wrong here!

Who are the "120 Nobel Prize Laureates" that are supposed to be members? Is there a list somewhere?

Websites are offline. While I do not like to kick a defenseless victim, they are offline for at least a week now (I checked last monday!)

Is there any proof that the members mentioned in the article are actually members? Mr. Dausset is no member (at the very least anymore) because he is dead, but is there any evidence that the other mentioned persons are in any way affiliated with IAS?

Looks more like namedropping to me.

Castle Tratzberg can be rented for meetings and similar things, but that's it. To make absolutely sure I have sent an email today to the castle info address. I will come back with the result (if I get one)

I found a conference held in russia by the IAS: http://www.ecologicalproblems.ru/english/

The only non IAS speaker there seems to be "Rector of M.A.Sholokhov Moscow State Humanitarian University Vladimir D. Nechaev" and it seems that the conference was held at that "university"

I found this homepage relating to it: http://www.mgopu.ru/index_en.htm Looks highly trustworthy...

http://www.mgopu.ru looks more like a school for teenagers to me? Sorry, don't understand russian, just pictures ;-)

I have emailed rggu.com (a definitely genuine university in moscow) about this site, I hope that they can confirm/deny it's status.

-- Crabel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: No answer from Castle Tratzberg about IAS. A second mail (from another address) with a question about renting the castle was answered rather quickly.

A russian friend answered my question about www.mgopu.ru and it is indeed a genuine university in moscow. I think, the english page is kind of dead weight, it seems it wasn't updated for years. Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This was not listed, I have listed it, but it is still wrongly formatted. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Now fixed I think. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd think this would be notable, and certainly, the German Wikipedia has very different ideas on notability. —innotata 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody is interested: german discussion Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would guess something like this is notable enough to require an article. At a quick search I had troubles finding member lists but the facebook page seems to list some. It was interesting to find that UMichigan says about a professor that is a member of the American Physical Society, Royal Society of Science, International Academy of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. This means in their opinion, the IAS is in the same range of reputability as APS, RSS, and NAS. I am tempted to go with 'keep on this one. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mailed Mr. Donald Glaser about his membership but no answer so far. Will update in case I get one.

Update: No answer from Mr. Glaser. And I guess, I won't get one... Crabel (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Häder/Uni Erlangen, one of the members in DE stated (deletion discussin DE): "I was asked about membership many years ago and agreed but never had anything to do with the IAS since then".

This sentence was taken from the homepage when it was still online: "Honorary Academicians of the International Academy of Science are all ICSD members until 1990 which are Nobel Prize Winners. All Nobel Laureates signed the foundation covenant of the Initiating Committee. A Nobel Prize Winners can become honorary fellow ("Honorary IAS Academician) by assumption of membership. Until 2008, 119 Nobel Laureates are or were honorary fellows." Here is a list of honorary members as taken from the now unreachable sites.

Members like Dieter Broers(according to himself Head of Biophysics) did not help the case for keep either (he as a degree from Rutherford University, a known degree mill) and wrote a science(!) book about the apocalypse in 2012. Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. This sounds to me like one of Pauling's efforts at international cooperation, & there may be some more historical info.in bios of Pauling. I am not sure the international organization is important now, but it once was, and so it remains notable. There is good evidence that the Russian section at least is still active--they have scheduled events as currently as Oct 26, 2010 [1]; and see [2]. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Attack-Warning: The brand new user Crabel is member of in illegal activities involved Esowatch Group. Esowatch.com is registered in Hong Kong on Linh Wang (who is involved in many german lawsuits - all sides were deleted from German courts!), and anonymous hosted in Turkey hosted. For many peoples ESOWATCH.com is an illegal Cyber-Mobbing Organization. They attack German citizens, scientists - and so on. One person gave a head money of 100.000 € for identifying the organization (I not !). Crabel planed the attack of the International Academy of Science in the esowatch forum, user crabel - with the title "Hoppla ! Bei Wikipedia gibt es 100.000 Euro zu gewinnen !" engl. "Hoppla ! We can win 100.000 € by Wikipedia !". They think that Dalia Lama cooperates with Nazis, that the new German federal president is a extreme fundamentalist, the love to classify scientists as pseudo, e.g.. There is an ongoing discussion in German Wikipedia – especially if esowatch is a criminal esoteric organization or not. Please set Crabel and esowatch.com on your spam-filter! Thank You.--84.148.181.110 (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure how relevant this is for this discussion, I think I should reply. Yes, I am a forum member at esowatch.com. It is not an illegal organization but it certainly has many "friends". Please take a look at the small English section to get an impression of EW: EW-Wiki Mainpage English. If this is to emphasize my WP:POV, well I agree, I am biased against IAS because it is an "importance factory" in my opinion. If there are further questions, please ask. Crabel (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only thing that matters right now is the complete lack of sources. It does seem like an interesting organisation, but as of right now the article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG completely. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fails WP:V, let alone WP:N. I searched assiduously. Wikipedia cannot have a page making such sweeping claims without any reliable sourcing whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting rationale is that additional discussion began in the last two days of this listing. Mandsford 20:02, 19 October 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.