Deletion of Galen Institute

Comment: The deletion rationale is quite poor. Articles are not deleted for ''"Insufficient evidence of notability given"'', it is way too myopic merely to examine the "evidence given", when the true question is if evidence likely '''exist'''.  The difference between the two is of course the work required to find that evidence, and work is always unpopular.  Was  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.  ''Media Matters for America'', 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. http://mediamatters.org/research/200905200041 ''Media Matters'' 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" http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Galen+Institute&lr=&sa=N&start=20.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)