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. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Capital Foundation[edit]

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

no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no evidence of reliable secondary sources establishing notability for this foundation. Does indeed look like a walled garden... --Crusio (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. The expression "wall garden" does not mean much. There are numerous good academic contributions on their website as mentioned in 2006. Their conferences are also well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.235.215.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. The William Davidson Institute is not very different and is not considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ???? The William Davidson Institute does not have an article? In any case, the fact that other bad articles exist does not justify keeping similar articles. --Crusio (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The William Davidson Institute does have an article, but it comprises no references, and is not considered for deletion, so why lack so much objectivity Crusio? This TSCF article gives complete info to public about a serious organization. See no problem with it.

  You're right, The William Davidson Institute does have a page (I searched for "William Davidson Institute", and then one gets redirected to the UMich article; it owuld be handy if you could clearly indicate such links in your comments). I'll have a look at it later, no time now, although at first sight I indeed do not see much reason why it should have a separate article. However, please WP:AGF. I am not biased against TSCF. That does not mean, however, that it is my task to find all similar articles and propose those for deletion, too (there must be thousands of those....) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an established policy for this kind of cases. --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sufficient reliable published third-party sources are provided to establish notability. As it is, this is close to an A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crusio and David Eppstein. Does not pass WP:N for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Hi folks, this is TSCF. You do what you want with your articles but please take into consideration the following. As a still young Foundation, we are working to increase coverage. However, we already have several hundred international members, our conferences are appreciated as we have each time 100-150 participants from all over the world, and we have 26.000 unique visitors a year to our website. We release a line of publications for almost 10 years, and we have published some 150 international contributors, some of them famous for cross-cultural comparisons, like Geert Hofstede. We use a scientific evaluation methodology that is one of the most sophisticated currently (Crusio, not the case of CNRS!). We have had on the Board illustrious people like Pierre Bourdieu. In 2007, we rejected most of the articles on fiscal policy that had been submitted, because they included already published elements, and we want to deliver to the public original quality materials. In 2008, we should resume retrospectively our publications with original materials on active ageing. So we think that all this shows a growing reputation and recognition, and that this Wikipedia article gives to your public synthetic information they have the right to have. Now, the decision is yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSCF (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an established fact that there is a growing interest in the activities of The Social Capital Foundation and its ideals particularly among academics. I think that the arguments presented by some for its deletion are subjective and too biased to be taken seriously. TSCF is a scientifically sound institution with a serious agenda that aims to promote peoples' lives in their communities through their main asset: Social Capital. TSCF confernce themes (see the latest theme of the upcoming conference in Malta in Sept. 2008)and the published articles in the International Scope Review testify to what I am saying. Do not delete this article.Tiziouzou15 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

• delete per Crusio, David Eppstein . Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete The Social Capital Foundation weaves the global network of academic scholars. The conferences and the International Scope Review journal articles are very useful for research, academic development and university courses. Do not delete this article.User:Updatenews,19.29, 16 June 2(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.171.106 (talk) Note: User:Updatenews has no edits, Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Deletion has been requested by someone who has been banned from Wikipedia. There is coverage for TSCF from serious institutions like the Interamerican bank and the World Bank. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources, no evidence of notability. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) --Reply: added some references --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (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.