1100:. The Galen group and its staff may have a high profile as spokespersons, but publicity for a cause/belief/etc. is a major reason these organizations exist. The results of heavy marketing and PR efforts, no matter how successful, are as unimportant in a notability discussion as well-known or huge advertising campaigns (unless, of course, they are a focus of mainstream reporting themselves). When all the "placements" are removed, there remains no significant coverage or profile of the organization itself, or anything more than 2-4 sentence descriptions that vary little from those supplied by the organization itself or vague references to its ties or funding. As the article stands now, it's an essay written in Knowledge style that's nothing more than repetition of the points the organization wants to get out and that are sourced only to its own people or supporters, no matter what the actual publication is. Until there is some serious objective, comprehensive mainstream reporting on this organization that delves into something deeper than talking points, then there's no reason for an article here.
815:, it is not an op-ed, but an editorial - it was written by the editorial board of the paper, not the board of the Galen Institute. The polling data in the piece was not used in an article about the organization, but about health care attitudes in the United States. In other words, while the Galen Institute wasn't the subject of the piece, it was deemed significant and notable enough by the editorial board of the
1118:
evidence that these media mentions are "placements" submitted as part of a broader public relations effort? As far as I can tell, the coverage of the Galen
Institute in the press is in direct relation to their positions on health care issues, not their effort to sell themselves as a brand - having worked in print journalism and at communications agencies, I can say with an absolute degree of certainty that the
380:. At first glance at the sources, I thought Sarek had been asleep.......then I saw that almost everything in a source not related to the org was a listing of something a member said etc., not coverage of the org itself. That doesn't make the org notable. No evidence that the org itself has attained notability.
648:
I still contend, as I pointed out in my initial post regarding this subject, that the fact that the Galen
Institute has been featured in multiple top-tier media sources (not only through quotes, but through profiles and other stories about the organization) provides sufficient validity and notoriety.
1126:
don't accept "placements" for their op-eds, and they don't publish op-eds from organizations that do not meet sufficient notoriety criteria. And, as I previously mentioned, I've added articles and television appearances that focus specifically on the organization, its funding, and its principles -
324:
Quoting an organization's leader and mentioning the organization in that context isn't generally held to be substantial coverage. And about reconsidering deletion -- I don't make the call on that. The closing admin will review the discussion here and decide if there's consensus to keep the article
837:
Nice smoke and mirror effect. Listing thing seperately, yet not exactly in context. Listing places they appeared as "reliable and independent" doesn't mean that when they appeared there, it was significant or in depth. Then you list the "significant" coverage seperately. That should be one list
1117:
You're drawing the conclusion that these media mentions (or as you call them, "placements") were obtained as part of a public relations campaign rather than because of the organization's notoriety - a view that is at the very least myopic and the very worst completely misinformed. Do you have
1038:, an organization that "fights conservative misinformation" critizices the WSJ op-ed for not disclosing that the Galen Institute receives funding from pharmaceutical and medical industries, thereby purportedly having a conflict of interest when supporting conservative health care proposals.
891:
piece an op-ed, when it is, in fact, an editorial - the former is submitted by a third-party to the paper, and the latter is written by the paper's editorial board. That's the difference between the Galen
Institute submitting a press release and having it published, and the editorial board
537:, while there are stories that use quotes from Galen personnel, there are also profiles of the Galen Institute, stories about the Galen Institute's funding, the organization's mission/goals, conferences held by the organization, and polling and studies conducted by the organization.
222:
SarekOfVulcan - if you look at the other source material, you'll see that in addition to letters to the editor, the Galen
Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, including multiple article submissions to and mentions in publicatiosn and outlets, such as the
297:
to an article describing Galen
Institute President Grace-Marie Turner's role on the 2005 Presidential Medicare Commission. This is not a letter to the editor, but rather a substantive article that clearly discusses the Galen Institute. Additionally I have added a third
869:
is less significant or relevant than a fluff piece on the organization? As far as I can tell, there are few pieces solely on the organization (as is the case for other organizations featured in
Knowledge that have not faced this level of scrutiny); there are, however,
939:"An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board.
1047:. Niteshift36's interpretation of the notability guideline seems overly bureaucratic and formalistic, requesting specific 3rd party indepth mentioning of the institute, when it is pretty obvious that the Institute has very broad media profile.
684:"significant coverage in secondary sources" (see the coverage of the Galen Institute by Fox Business Network, and note that while the president of the Galen Institute appears in those clips, she appears as a representative of the organization);
856:
You're taking the objective terms "significant" and "relevant" and making them subjective based on your own personal views of what's significant and what's relevant. Who's to say that having poll data used in an editorial from the
838:
because both reliable and significant need to be present, not one or the other. Also, when did I say the op-ed piece was written by the org? I said it is an op-ed piece. It is. It is the editorial opinion of the paper (ie op-ed).
267:, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform. I can source additional information if necessary, but under these grounds, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page.
883:
With regard to the op-eds and letters to the editor - if there is an issue with op-eds and letters to the editor being grouped with other coverage, I recognize and respect that and can make changes to separate news and
169:
1033:
followed? Anyway, I'm in line with
Oakshade, running op-eds in Wall Street Journal, not as a private person, but representing the institute, should convince most people, that notability concerns are immaterial.
484:
Niteshift - to address your concerns, I've added articles that specifically focus on the Galen
Institute as an organization, as well as articles on the Health Policy Consensus Group, to the reference section.
204:
written by the founder is used to substantiate coverage in the New York Times. Article was previously speedied as promotional, but the current version is significantly different from the deleted version.
878:), and has been featured in top media outlets (are 6-10 minute segments on Fox Business Network not considered "in depth", even though they feature the organization, its positions and key goals?).
251:
in other instances in addition to the aforementioned letters to the editor; I can document those appropriately on the page if needed. Furthermore, the Galen
Institute counts among its
589:
The Human Events piece is a step in the right direction. The op-ed piece does nothing. They provided polling data. That's not coverage of the org. Again, the primary criteria is:
256:
1044:
clearly see the op-ed piece as the work of the Galen institute, not the individual writing it (and so do I). Additionally, there are about 200 Gbook hits for "Galen
Institute"
356:
124:
163:
509:"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story."
1061:
I'm willing to consider I might be wrong about the level of sourcing out there. However, I disagree with your GBooks search above. When I close the quote, I get
1079:
Power.corrupts - I've added that Media Matters for America article as a source to my statement about the organization's funding. Thanks for pointing it out.
429:
819:
for inclusion of their data and their organization in the piece. Explain how this doesn't meet reliability, significance and notability standards.
129:
1065:, some of which appear to mention it only in the context of an individual working with them, and some of which are books published by them. --
874:
of instances where the organization has submitted pieces to top publications (I doubt an insignificant organization could get a piece in the
466:
So coverage not about the org, but about a person who belongs to the org makes the org notable? That sounds like inheriting notability.
97:
92:
861:
editorial board isn't significant? Who's to determine whether a focused paragraph discussing the organization's views and positions in
101:
403:
84:
264:
17:
184:
151:
1029:. The difference between the two is of course the work required to find that evidence, and work is always unpopular. Was
1062:
397:- Some of the most prestigious reliable sources in the US use this organization for content on health care issues. If
511:
It's not MY concern, it's the criteria. A bunch of quotes from members do absolutely nothing to establish notability.
260:
1148:
clearly notable, their studies are regularly cited by the media, and the companies personnel are regularly quoted.--
438:
1045:
1172:
145:
36:
1171:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1052:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
612:. Using a poll the org did in an article not about the org isn't going to go far in satisfying that criteria.
310:
as a publication in which the Galen Institute has appeared; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute.
569:
editorial that uses polling data from the Galen Institute, and a lengthy profile of the Galen Institute from
446:
306:
to the reference section, so as to clear up any and all question as to: a) the appropriateness of citing the
1157:
1136:
1132:
1108:
1088:
1084:
1074:
1070:
1056:
1025:, it is way too myopic merely to examine the "evidence given", when the true question is if evidence likely
993:
989:
847:
828:
824:
621:
582:
578:
546:
542:
520:
494:
490:
475:
457:
442:
389:
371:
338:
334:
319:
315:
276:
272:
214:
210:
141:
66:
411:
413:
1153:
1128:
1080:
985:
843:
820:
770:
not "trivial or incidental" (I'm not sure one could classify commentary from the Galen Institute in the
617:
574:
538:
516:
486:
471:
407:
385:
311:
268:
232:
941:
These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.
191:
399:
236:
88:
1048:
417:
224:
177:
1105:
1066:
717:"reliable and independent of the subject" (ranging from prominent daily-run top-tier newspapers (
453:
330:
206:
595:
coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject."
367:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
157:
1149:
1030:
839:
613:
512:
467:
381:
326:
240:
201:
650:
534:
530:
433:
425:
421:
294:
252:
244:
228:
80:
72:
573:
magazine. I've also added some articles that examine the Health Policy Consensus Group.
307:
303:
299:
290:
248:
892:
referencing the organization's polling information because of its notoriety. From the
610:
coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
1101:
504:
449:
302:
source - an article written by Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner for the
363:
118:
1127:
sources that are not, as you assert, "vague references to its ties or funding."
1039:
737:) to television (Fox Business Network) to radio (National Public Radio));
1021:. The deletion rationale is quite poor. Articles are not deleted for
893:
1165:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
865:
or a submission from the organization via its leadership to the
200:
Insufficient evidence of notability given, IMO. For example, a
602:
of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."
503:
Specifically, if you look at the notability criteria under
114:
110:
106:
176:
257:
United States Department of Health and Human Services
247:. The Galen Institute has also been featured in the
448:
consider them notable, then Knowledge should to. --
357:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1175:). No further edits should be made to this page.
190:
8:
1023:"Insufficient evidence of notability given"
351:
325:based on arguments grounded in Knowledge
355:: This debate has been included in the
253:notable scholars, trustees and fellows
255:former high ranking officials at the
7:
289:As an addendum, there is a second
24:
782:as "trivial" and "incidental").
265:Office of Management and Budget
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1158:02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1137:21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1109:19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1089:16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
1075:15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
1057:15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
994:15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
848:04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
829:03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
622:01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
583:20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
547:03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
521:01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
495:16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
476:08:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
458:07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
390:02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
372:22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
339:22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
320:21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
277:21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
215:20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
67:14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
725:), to prominent magazines (
565:Specifically, I've added a
261:Congressional Budget Office
1192:
1036:Media Matters for America
591:"has been the subject of
293:source under the page's
1168:Please do not modify it.
811:As for the piece in the
32:Please do not modify it.
443:San Francisco Chronicle
259:, former heads of the
887:And you did call the
531:media coverage I list
408:National Public Radio
233:National Public Radio
894:Knowledge op-ed page
780:Fox Business Network
400:Fox Business Network
237:FOX Business Network
202:letter to the editor
1120:Wall Street Journal
876:Wall Street Journal
867:Wall Street Journal
772:Wall Street Journal
723:Wall Street Journal
653:are, in my opinion:
529:If you look at the
418:Wall Street Journal
225:Wall Street Journal
863:The New York Times
778:or appearances on
719:The New York Times
374:
360:
295:reference section
1183:
1170:
889:Washington Times
859:Washington Times
817:Washington Times
813:Washington Times
727:National Journal
567:Washington Times
361:
241:National Journal
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
34:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1173:deletion review
1166:
731:Reason Magazine
434:National Review
426:Chicago Tribune
245:National Review
229:Chicago Tribune
137:
128:
95:
81:Galen Institute
79:
76:
73:Galen Institute
60:
56:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1189:
1187:
1178:
1177:
1161:
1160:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1124:New York Times
1112:
1111:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1049:Power.corrupts
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
885:
880:
879:
851:
850:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
776:New York Times
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
651:These mentions
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
535:sources I cite
524:
523:
498:
497:
479:
478:
461:
460:
392:
375:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
308:New York Times
304:New York Times
300:New York Times
291:New York Times
282:
281:
280:
279:
249:New York Times
198:
197:
134:
130:AfD statistics
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1188:
1176:
1174:
1169:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:Andrewpsroyal
1125:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:Andrewpsroyal
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:SarekOfVulcan
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1042:Media Matters
1040:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1016:
995:
991:
987:
986:Andrewpsroyal
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
942:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
895:
890:
886:
882:
881:
877:
873:
868:
864:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
821:Andrewpsroyal
818:
814:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
652:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
623:
619:
615:
611:
609:
603:
601:
596:
594:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
575:Andrewpsroyal
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
548:
544:
540:
539:Andrewpsroyal
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
487:Andrewpsroyal
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
445:
444:
439:
436:
435:
430:
428:
427:
422:
420:
419:
414:
412:
410:
409:
404:
402:
401:
396:
393:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
373:
369:
365:
358:
354:
350:
349:
340:
336:
332:
331:SarekOfVulcan
328:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
312:Andrewpsroyal
309:
305:
301:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
274:
270:
269:Andrewpsroyal
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
207:SarekOfVulcan
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1167:
1164:
1145:
1123:
1119:
1097:
1041:
1035:
1026:
1022:
1019:Obvious keep
1018:
940:
888:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
816:
812:
779:
775:
771:
735:Human Events
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
607:
606:"Trivial or
605:
599:
597:
592:
590:
571:Human Events
570:
566:
508:
441:
432:
424:
416:
406:
398:
394:
377:
352:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
53:
52:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1150:Otterathome
840:Niteshift36
614:Niteshift36
593:significant
513:Niteshift36
507:is states:
468:Niteshift36
382:Niteshift36
164:free images
608:incidental
57:rbitrarily
1031:WP:BEFORE
364:• Gene93k
1102:Flowanda
1063:124 hits
884:opinion.
872:hundreds
450:Oakshade
440:and the
327:policies
125:View log
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
1098:Delete
505:WP:ORG
431:, the
423:, the
415:, the
378:Delete
243:, and
142:Google
102:delete
1027:exist
600:depth
598:"The
185:JSTOR
146:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
1154:talk
1146:Keep
1133:talk
1122:and
1106:Talk
1085:talk
1071:talk
1053:talk
990:talk
844:talk
825:talk
774:and
618:talk
579:talk
543:talk
533:and
517:talk
491:talk
472:talk
454:talk
395:Keep
386:talk
368:talk
353:Note
335:talk
329:. --
316:talk
273:talk
263:and
211:talk
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
362:--
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
1156:)
1135:)
1104:|
1087:)
1073:)
1055:)
992:)
846:)
827:)
733:,
729:,
721:,
620:)
604:.
581:)
545:)
519:)
493:)
474:)
456:)
437:,
405:,
388:)
370:)
359:.
337:)
318:)
275:)
239:,
235:,
231:,
227:,
213:)
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
1152:(
1131:(
1083:(
1069:(
1051:(
988:(
896::
842:(
823:(
616:(
577:(
541:(
515:(
489:(
470:(
452:(
384:(
366:(
333:(
314:(
271:(
209:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.