539:
534:
529:
519:
509:
504:
514:
884:
Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Where is the "significant independent coverage"? A bunch of passing mentions related to their PR around their claim that there is no consensus on the safety of GM food, doesn't cut it, in my view.
828:, that's a fair point — I shouldn't have brought in GMO Journal as a source. However, there are enough reliable sources that describe this group in sufficient depth and detail. You can see some of these sources in the section of the article about the group's activities, which I have recently expanded. --
568:
What you have presented there are a bunch of passing mentions. Being good at press releases =/= NOTABILITY. And for the second time here, phys.org is a press release. What you value so much as "content creation" seems to have incredibly low standards and yes, I was already aware of these mentions.
630:
cite him, as he is a known advocate for GMOs. The GMO articles would look very different if I actually edited like you claim I do. I only use high quality, independent sources. And in this case, the only thing that comes close and that provides significant discussion is the SciDev piece. If this
810:
The GMO Journal site is a blog. The internet is full of blogs about GMOs. I never use them - they are not the kind of high quality sources we should use on controversial topics. There are probably many, many, many more similar sites that could be added as well; there is tons of anti-GMO advocacy
883:
I just want to cite NOTABILITY here: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
583:
Oh please. The Forbes article talks about the organization and completely discredits any serious scientific chops it claims. The Phys.org is completely about ENSSER, and is not a PR. Reason spends the entire article refuting the position of ENSSER. It's positions are covered in the books listed,
324:
Jytdog, the
Physorg source is used for the lede outline. However, you still do not respond in regards to your claims that ENSSER is a fringe group or why you removed reliable sources from the article. A dialog always includes 2 sides, so far you ignore my questions - in regards to serious
104:
99:
178:
794:, the articles cited here include more than "passing mentions" of this organization. For example, the GMO Journal article discusses the context of the group's advocacy in the larger GM food debate, and the Forbes article discusses the merits of the group's statements. --
108:
91:
610:
it comes direct from ENSSER. That is the bulk of the content on phys.org - it publishes press releases and puts statements like that at the bottom. I am not censoring; there is a lack of sourcing giving significant discussion to this tiny advocacy organization.
310:, where it says "Provided by: European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility". Press releases are not independent and not reliable beyond a claim about what the organization says about itself. It doesn't count toward NOTABILITY.
444:. The fact that the group may advocate for fringe science (if Jytdog is correct) does not make the group non-notable nor prohibit its inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). WP does not censor, nor do we limit inclusion to those groups which are politically correct.
95:
172:
87:
79:
984:- per above keeps, and as Petrachan47 points out, the OP is promoting an Afd that gives a strong suggestion of manipulation. My credulity is strained by this Afd, which appears to be part of an ongoing pattern.
138:
857:
This article clearly serves a useful purpose and has some credible sources behind it. I'll be the first to admit that it could be improved and expanded--so let's just do that, rather than delete it.
584:
usually with a comment that ENSSER is wrong. That's GNG, and you don't get to censor things that you do not like. Screaming "FRINGE" does not mean you get to ban mention of notable groups from WP.
759:- Per GregJack's excellent research of numerous sources to counteract any disagreements. I'm a little confused as to why this was nominated when there is so much coverage that can be easily found.
1025:
1000:
976:
944:
915:
893:
837:
820:
803:
786:
768:
751:
726:
693:
658:
640:
597:
578:
563:
477:
457:
425:
405:
385:
365:
334:
319:
294:
280:
266:
248:
222:
73:
927:; although I do sympathise with Jytdog's comments I'm afraid arguments otherwise are prevalent and have greater weight. A cursory search has demonstrated this passes general notability.
484:
193:
160:
353:
131:
393:
154:
413:
150:
373:
956:, to no avail. It strikes me as bad form and a bit underhanded, this. The ENSSER published a paper which calls attention to the work done by OP at the GMO article.
200:
499:
1008:
Knowledge (XXG) requires 2 reliable sources at a minimum, and 3 if there is doubt. Can someone who votes keep please show the 2-3 sources which confirm
166:
738:
The organization has received coverage from the
Huffington Post, the Economist, and the LA Times, and other media outlets. The article meets
933:
873:
969:
683:
17:
952:
and snow close with a trout for OP, as this organization has published articles whose inclusion OP is actively arguing against at
285:
Please answer the question, also it seems that you have issue with counting. Notice that the editor removed reliable sources.
995:
811:
on the web. GMOs are a science-based topic, not video games. Bringing those sources in would turn GMOs into
Gamergate.
1044:
906:), published in a peer reviewed journal. There is especially extensive coverage in regards to 1 of those publications.
40:
468:
response above fails to deal with lack of independent sourcing, which is the first reason given. Smoke, not light.
953:
764:
271:
There is one (1) independent, reliable source (as far as I can tell at this point) and that is the SciDev article.
833:
799:
747:
569:
Most of them point out the FRINGE nature of the group, if you have bothered to read the sources you brought.
939:
489:
306:
861:
703:
1020:
964:
869:
631:
article is a "keep", this may be a case to cite Entine, since the whole article is about advocacy anyway.
441:
232:
1040:
911:
760:
654:
330:
290:
262:
244:
36:
494:
829:
795:
743:
591:
557:
451:
186:
547:
990:
929:
690:
61:
1012:? Only show 2-3 that pass.. I am ready to change my vote when someone shows those best sources.
239:? You seem to be the first to claim that this network of researchers advocates fringe science.
1013:
959:
865:
421:
401:
381:
361:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1039:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
679:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
907:
889:
816:
782:
722:
650:
636:
616:
574:
473:
326:
315:
286:
276:
258:
240:
218:
739:
707:
437:
210:
678:
The organisation is presented in a paper that I found though google scholar and is found
213:. No significant independent sources on this group. Group advocates for FRINGE science.
586:
552:
446:
1009:
985:
687:
66:
417:
397:
377:
357:
125:
524:
Ronald Bailey, The End of Doom: Environmental
Renewal in the Twenty-first Century
885:
825:
812:
791:
778:
718:
632:
612:
570:
469:
311:
272:
214:
623:
88:
European
Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
80:
European
Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
777:
as above, passing mentions are not useful for establishing NOTABILITY.
299:
press releases are not reliable sources, nor are they independent. I
686:
of other scholarly work presuming that this is the same person.
1033:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
257:
I've updated the article with more authority references.
903:
606:
As I wrote above, at the bottom of the phys.org source
300:
121:
117:
113:
682:. The second of the two editors seems to have done a
185:
622:
With regard to the Forbes source, that is written by
235:. Can you specify and reference what you mean with,
199:
354:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
710:, there needs to be independent reliable sources
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1047:). No further edits should be made to this page.
394:list of Environment-related deletion discussions
902:Look, there are publications in the article (
8:
414:list of Science-related deletion discussions
412:Note: This debate has been included in the
392:Note: This debate has been included in the
372:Note: This debate has been included in the
352:Note: This debate has been included in the
546:I could go on. You really should have done
374:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
717:, not its members. There is exactly one.
411:
391:
371:
351:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
237:Group advocates for FRINGE science.
24:
904:which Jytdog btw tried to remove
876:) 22:26, 5 September 2015(UTC)
74:17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
1026:14:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
1001:06:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
977:04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
945:19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
916:19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
894:19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
838:17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
821:15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
804:21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
787:20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
769:20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
752:19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
727:17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
694:17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
659:21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
641:15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
626:. In all my work on GMOs, I
598:20:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
579:20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
564:18:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
478:17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
458:17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
426:05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
406:05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
386:05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
366:05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
335:19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
320:17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
295:11:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
281:11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
267:05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
249:04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
223:23:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
649:Book 4 link isn't working.
550:. Smoke and light? Really?
1064:
954:Genetically modified foods
305:look at the bottom of the
1036:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
436:per Prokaryotes. Meets
301:already told you this
932:
878:
864:comment added by
715:the organization'
428:
408:
388:
368:
59:
56:non-admin closure
1055:
1038:
1023:
1018:
998:
993:
988:
974:
972:
967:
962:
942:
936:
928:
877:
858:
761:TheGracefulSlick
596:
594:
589:
562:
560:
555:
525:
456:
454:
449:
204:
203:
189:
141:
129:
111:
71:
64:
53:
34:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1045:deletion review
1034:
1021:
1014:
996:
991:
986:
970:
965:
960:
958:
940:
934:
859:
830:Notecardforfree
796:Notecardforfree
744:Notecardforfree
592:
587:
585:
558:
553:
551:
523:
452:
447:
445:
307:phys.org source
146:
137:
102:
86:
83:
67:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1061:
1059:
1050:
1049:
1029:
1028:
1016:Blue Rasberry
1003:
979:
947:
921:
920:
919:
918:
897:
896:
880:
879:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
772:
771:
754:
732:
731:
730:
729:
697:
696:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
620:
543:
542:
537:
532:
527:
517:
512:
507:
502:
497:
492:
487:
481:
480:
461:
460:
430:
429:
409:
389:
369:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
252:
251:
207:
206:
143:
82:
77:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1060:
1048:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1017:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
994:
989:
983:
980:
978:
975:
973:
968:
963:
955:
951:
948:
946:
943:
937:
931:
926:
923:
922:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
875:
871:
867:
863:
856:
853:
852:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
709:
705:
704:WP:NOTABILITY
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
674:
673:
660:
656:
652:
648:
642:
638:
634:
629:
625:
621:
618:
614:
609:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
595:
590:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
567:
566:
565:
561:
556:
549:
545:
544:
541:
538:
536:
533:
531:
528:
521:
518:
516:
513:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
482:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
450:
443:
439:
435:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
336:
332:
328:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
302:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
140:
136:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
70:
65:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1035:
1032:
1015:
1005:
981:
961:petrarchan47
957:
949:
924:
866:Garagepunk66
860:— Preceding
854:
756:
735:
714:
711:
675:
627:
607:
442:WP:NONPROFIT
433:
325:accusations.
304:
236:
233:WP:NONPROFIT
228:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
134:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
941:talk to me!
908:prokaryotes
651:prokaryotes
526:143 (2015).
500:Science 2.0
327:prokaryotes
287:prokaryotes
259:prokaryotes
241:prokaryotes
173:free images
624:Jon Entine
495:Reason.com
1041:talk page
588:GregJackP
554:GregJackP
548:WP:BEFORE
448:GregJackP
418:• Gene93k
398:• Gene93k
378:• Gene93k
358:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1043:or in a
935:contribs
874:contribs
862:unsigned
702:To meet
490:Phys.org
132:View log
69:JAaron95
39:or in a
676:Comment
608:it says
593:Boomer!
559:Boomer!
453:Boomer!
231:Meets,
179:WP refs
167:scholar
105:protect
100:history
1022:(talk)
1006:Delete
886:Jytdog
826:Jytdog
813:Jytdog
792:Jytdog
779:Jytdog
740:WP:GNG
719:Jytdog
708:WP:ORG
633:Jytdog
613:Jytdog
571:Jytdog
540:book 7
535:book 6
530:book 5
520:book 4
515:book 3
510:book 2
505:book 1
485:Forbes
470:Jytdog
438:WP:GNG
312:Jytdog
303:, but
273:Jytdog
215:Jytdog
211:WP:ORG
209:fails
151:Google
109:delete
930:FoCuS
855:Keep:
742:. --
736:Keep:
712:about
684:range
628:never
194:JSTOR
155:books
139:Stats
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
1010:WP:N
982:Keep
950:Keep
925:Keep
912:talk
890:talk
870:talk
834:talk
817:talk
800:talk
783:talk
765:talk
757:Keep
748:talk
723:talk
706:and
691:Kaye
688:Greg
680:here
655:talk
637:talk
617:talk
575:talk
474:talk
440:and
434:Keep
422:talk
402:talk
382:talk
362:talk
331:talk
316:talk
291:talk
277:talk
263:talk
245:talk
229:Keep
219:talk
187:FENS
161:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
50:keep
997:fax
987:Jus
201:TWL
130:– (
52:.
992:da
966:คุ
938:;
914:)
892:)
872:•
836:)
819:)
802:)
785:)
767:)
750:)
725:)
657:)
639:)
577:)
522:,
476:)
424:)
416:.
404:)
396:.
384:)
376:.
364:)
356:.
333:)
318:)
293:)
279:)
265:)
247:)
221:)
181:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
971:ก
910:(
888:(
868:(
832:(
815:(
798:(
781:(
763:(
746:(
721:(
653:(
635:(
619:)
615:(
573:(
472:(
420:(
400:(
380:(
360:(
329:(
314:(
289:(
275:(
261:(
243:(
217:(
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
135:·
128:)
90:(
63:☮
60:—
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.