Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Innovation 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 delete. -

This article, written by an editor with the same name as the contact given for the WIF, makes extraordinary claims -- the planned construction of a global science city being the most remarkable, with the huge number of claimed Nobelist members not being far behind. (The same editor has also linked large numbers of scientists' Wikipedia articles to this article, and also to the WIF website; so many that I blocked them for linkspamming.)

Yet, apart from a number of distinguished academics having accepted fellowships and other awards offered in letters from the WIF, there seems to be remarkably little evidence to back up its claims that does not come, directly or indirectly, from the WIF itself. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#World Innovation Foundation for more discussion about this, and details of some of the concerns about verifying the WIF's claims.

I propose that we delete this article unless verifiable evidence can be provided for the assertions in this article. If the WIF is an organization of the size and significance asserted by the article, it should have no difficulty doing so. -- The Anome 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, if we delete this article, I believe that we should also delete the related article Xanthos Menelaou, from the same author.) -- The Anome 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Xanthos article reeks of being part of a hoax/scam/crank effort too, though I also noticed that the US newspaper The Christian Science Monitor picked the ridiculous "Mighty Aphrodite" story up. This is why we need to be absolutely stringent about requiring multiple, non-trivial independent reliable sources - yes, I'm looking at you, The Game (game). Bwithh 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw crap, I ran a Factiva search, and it looks like UK newspapers The Independent, The Sunday Times and the The Express on Sunday picked up the Xanthos and his BS Aphrodite statue story too. Though that and the CSM article are all the hits in the database. I apologize for my country's laughable newspapers. (And I'm deeply disappointed in you, Christian Science Monitor). Though to be fair, from the reports, Cyprus's Ministry of Tourism got caught up the excitement of Xanthos' brilliant scheme too. Um, Xanthos is probably not a straightforward speedy delete candidate any more - sorry <=P Bwithh 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The WIF website contains very little verifiable data, and looks like a front. The activities of Drdavidhill, who may or may not be Dr David Hill, on this wiki do little to enhance the reputation of WIF, whch appears to be a figment of one man's imagination. Greglocock 13:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  provided to verify the nature of this organization. It is extremely unusual that an organization in operation since 1992 and claiming membership of thousands of scientists and dozens of Nobel Laureates does not show up in newspaper archive searches except in the form of scientists accepting new memberships. --Allen3 ^talk 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Allen3. Looks like a quite elaborate
  hoax. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but I saw nothing to disprove that. Duja 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both articles as lacking verifiable, reliable sources. I removed a lot of Drdavidhill's spam from other articles, and all of it seemed to be an attempt at promotion. Wmahan. 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] There are all links to academics who accepted fellowship. I think this should be considered as while I have my own opinion, apparently if its a hoax is scope is in fact epic. If you search google, there are hundreds of such entries, is everyone suckered and we at Wikipedia discovered the truth? Perhaps the group is just inactive or not public. --NuclearUmpf 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by the the comments on the WIF site's letters page [7]: the WIF appears to send out large numbers of letters to academics, offering them honorary fellowships, and academics write back to say thank you, they'd be honoured to accept. As one commenter on
    WP:AN notes, the Unification Church is well known for this kind of activity. Now, if these academics have done more than just reply politely to letters offering them an honour, and perhaps release a press release that they were being recognized by such an honour -- for example, if they had attended committee meetings or conferences held by the WIF -- I'd be much more inclined to accept at least some of the WIF's claims. However, I think the burden of proof lies with the WIF to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Personally I never suspected the organization of being an outright hoax; as others have pointed out, there is evidence it's real. But merely existing isn't enough. I've yet to see any verifiable evidence that the organization is notable, and I think it's telling that the only person who has added information about the organization seems to be trying to promote it. Wmahan. 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to be clear, the original criterion identified for the deletion of the article was that it was not verified information. Are we now adding that the subject is not notable?Risker 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues aren't completely separate: I think the claim that the organization exists is verifiable, but the claims that it's notable aren't (for example, there's no source for "it can count on the individual and collective support of...87 Nobel Laureates"). What criteria others use is up to them. Wmahan. 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it exists as claimed in the article, complete with its Swiss foundation and planned global research city on its way, then it is certainly notable, and the article should be kept. If it turns out to be one man with a letterhead and big dreams, then it probably isn't. -- The Anome 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little unclear as to how the WIF is supposed to come up with proof of its existence, when the primary editor of this article has been blocked from contributing because of the linkspam issue noted above. The person who is in the best position to provide the evidence is not able to contribute. Messages were left on his talk page about link spamming (not verifiability), and there are no comments to the article's talk page expressing concerns about verifiability. Risker 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is actually false, the burden of proof is not on the organizations as most do not post here. To say they are not notable after apparently information saying they are, means the burden of proof is on the accuser. You can do a google search some people list it as their highest honor and there are speeches WIF members gave, though I am sure they are known for more then that. Also our lack of ability to google their conferences, does not mean they do not take place. While I personally do not believe they exist, the "proof" says otherwise. As I stated on AN/I perhaps its best to contact some of the prestigious members and find out if this is a hoax, but I do think that more info needs to be rounded up before Wikipedia denounces it a hoax. What a black eye it would be if they are real and Wikipedia called such a group fake. Perhaps Arbcom or some legal aspect of Wikipedia should investigate this. --NuclearUmpf 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about proving them fake; rather, it is about proving their assertions to be real. The burden of proof for a positive assertion is always on the person making the assertion, in this case, the original writer of the article, who, at least on the face of it, appears to be a representative of the WIF. Otherwise, editors are put in the position of having to prove a negative. This is implicit in the
      verifiability policy. -- The Anome 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Proving something is ahoax isnt proving a negative, proving lots of sceintists are fooled is not proving a negative. I have given numerous links showing people belong to this group, their website speaks for itself as well. Its membership speaks for itself as well. If it exists, I think this AfD is not proper way to handle this and Arbcom or someone should put in some research time, or a phone call to them. --NuclearUmpf 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they're a hoax: rather, I'm looking for evidence that their assertions are true, as per

WP:V This is all quite normal stuff: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, burden of proof lies with the proposer, etc. -- The Anome 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • I've now unblocked User:Drdavidhill, and I've put a note on his userpage inviting him to comment on this AfD. I look forward to him providing independent evidence to support his claims. -- The Anome 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've found enough references on academic websites to indicate that this is a genuine organisation [8] [9] [10] DJ Clayworth 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly no doubt that there's an entity with a P.O. box in Huddersfield that writes letters to academics awarding them honorary fellowships, and that the academics in question accept these honours, and that their university issues a press release. But that is not necessarily a notable activity, as it can be engaged in by anyone with a laser printer and a pen. The question is whether the WIF exists as described in the article, Swiss charity, global research city plans and all. -- The Anome 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pending an investigation. i also do not believe we have enough information to call this a hoax. Per my own research and sources above and now DJ Clayworths. --NuclearUmpf 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per new evidence, hope this doesnt come back to bite Wikipedia. --NuclearUmpf 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not a hoax, then the
    WP:CORP criteria, in that no sources exist outside of the organization's own autobiography and simple rehashes of its publicity blurb. Uncle G 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per the Anome, and the discussion at AN/I. As for "keep pending an investigation", firstly that's the wrong way round and secondly this is an investigation. It seems odd, to say the least, that there is no non-trivial reporting of this organisation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldnt call one editors possible research to be investigation. If this is a hoax then World Federation of Engineering Organizations are also fooled because they invited Dr Karle to be their keynote speaker on behalf of the WIF. Someone was able to contact this group it seems. --NuclearUmpf 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm sure they can, and do, answer the phone at the number given, even if its phone and fax numbers also seem to be listed as being used by two small businesses run from a shop in Huddersfield. (see [11] and [12], scroll right, and [13], [14]: a Google search for "43 Lower Fitzwilliam Street" also yielda interesting results) I would not at all be surprised if the 88-year-old Dr Karle spoke on their behalf, when invited to do so: he appears to be a great and good man. The question is, again, are they, as stated, a globe-spanning organization with the active involvement of 3000 scientists, supported by a Swiss charitable foundation and with realistic prospects of building a $22 billion research city? -- The Anome 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at evidence at
  Kevin_b_er 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• STRONG Delete This is an entirely non-notable organization. If the organization sounds on the level and it doe not cost them anything - Academics will go "sure" to anything that they can put on a letterhead. Not sure what the endgame is but it's a paper organization. An international organization like that run out of that address in Hudderfield? That should have set the alarm bells ringing to start with. EDIT - the homemade website should have been another clue. --
  Charlesknight 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Tentative Delete as above. Exception: This hoax/crank/scam insitute may have been successful enough in promoting itself to merit keeping an article identifying it as a hoax/crank/scam institute.... Bwithh 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But our analysis that leads to the conclusion of hoax/crank/scam institute is original research in itself. The only purpose for it is that we identify it for what it is in order to delete it. Without reliable sources for denoting it as a hoax, it'd be original research to have it as an article about a hoax. --

Kevin_b_er 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete NN. — Dunc|☺ 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Several sources carry press releases with next to no editorial review. It is not enough to establish claims of notability. Nor is our own experience here enough to break free from
  WP:OR. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:ORG with notable associates by giving away worthless honorary memberships. Alexa rank is 20,000 leagues below the sea. Ohconfucius 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete somewhere between hoax and vanity spam. The subject as presented in the article is completely unverifiable. Guy 12:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The WIF seems to be a real entity on some level, and if there is independent evidence about its membership and activities, I'd support recreation. Even if it's a hoax, if it has indeed attracted so many Nobel prizewinners (most of them well into their twilight years, by the look of it), it would be a notable hoax. As it is, there is a vanishingly small amount of evidence about the organisation which does not come from its own website and "executive chairman". --ajn (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2006 (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.