Talk:Gladstone Institutes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Disclaimer: I am an employee of the Gladstone Institutes, but below is some information to be used for confirming Gladstone's notability. The facts and figures are taken from the "Finances" section of Gladstone's official website <http://gladstoneinstitutes.org> 1) Gladstone was founded with an $8 million trust from the estate of J. David Gladstone. That trust has now grown to more than $160 million. In addition, Gladstone has annual revenues in excess of $70 million. 2) The rate of funding for grants from the National Institutes of Health is at 32%. This is above the national average of 20%. 3) Gladstone employees more than 300 scientists, 27 of which are PI's. 4) Gladstone is affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco. 5) A Google search for Gladstone returns more than 98,000 results. 6) Several of Gladstone's scientists are leaders in their field. This includes Shinya Yamanaka, Robert Mahley and Deepak Srivastava. Adholden (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional sources to introduction section to further support notability. Adholden (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is established by the presentation of third-party sources with no affiliation with the article's subject. Can you provide reviews of this organization which were not written by this organization or its partners? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are doing right now - you should also know that information which has never been reported by any other entity other than the article's subject is considered non-notable. Notability is about other entities reporting things, not about self-publishing. Please comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional new source from the San Francisco Business Times on Gladstone Institutes. The SF Business Times is an independent newspaper based in San Francisco, it is completely independent and not affiliated with Gladstone in any way. You will also note citations from the National Institutes of Health and the San Francisco Chronicle, which are also not affiliated with Gladstone. Adholden (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great! Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gladstone Institutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

A lot of the sourcing comes from SF Business Journal, which is mostly behind a paywall. If anybody could find complimentary citations from other sources, it would be appreciated. Thanks. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]