Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JForget 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization, self-written spam piece, contested prod. No media coverage noted in Google News - only a listed in a couple of obits. Leuko (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an experienced medical researcher, I object to deleting this article. The deletion criteria state: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." The article has had some recent content added, but the gene therapy field itself is in a nascent state and further edits will proceed as the field progresses. Rather than deleting the article, it can be improved. Also, the definition "non-notable" is not subject to strict or absolute criteria. Moreover, the "spam piece" designation is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorjanson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC) — Doctorjanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing this organization; I would have thought that a notable organization would have hits in Google Scholar, but the only mention I found was incidental, in the post-article bio of one Dr. Christopher Janson. Of course, I could be wrong, and if independent sources have indeed discussed this organization in depth, I'd be glad to see the evidence and change my nonvote. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Delete per FisherQueen. I would have expected an organisation of this nature to return far more Google hits. I would also be happy to change my opinion if notability could be established.-gadfium 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No press coverage (other than death notices request donations), only one reference on Google scholar. The Saskatchewan Alzheimer's Society has more presence on Google scholar, and that only represents one lightly populated Canadian province. Also, the organization's own website fails to note any press coverage or research they've supported. Pburka (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also found very few sources. 5 google news hits, all obituaries requesting solicitations to the organization. It can be dangerous when an organization has an official-sounding name to assume that it's legit. It is quite possible this is actually a scam! At any rate, it is at the very best, a totally non-notable charity. Cazort (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Delete per FisherQueen and gadfium. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (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.