Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Academy of Neurology

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Neurology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Like mentioned below, the article does need some work, mostly in the citation area. I’d keep because of the size, reputation, publication history, future research, and importance of the Academy. StreetMath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Runs the largest conference on neurology in Europe eg [1]. These events will be heavily covered in the specialist press. It is the publisher of the European Journal of Neurology, a peer-reviewed academic journal which is ranked 36th of 199 clinical neurology journals.[2] Also publishes guidelines in peer-reviewed journals eg [3] which will be highly cited over time in the academic literature; for example, a 2008 guideline co-authored by one of the component organisations has ~500 citations.[4] Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article isn't great right now (mainly needs more third-party sources) and was created by the subject, but per Espresso Addict the subject seems to have a prima facie claim to notability. If this were a new article I'd suggest draftifying, but it's been around for long enough that I don't think draftification is the right choice here. creffett (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organisation is notable, but the coverage is in specialist journals behind paywall. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rathfelder sources exist even if they are inaccessible Dartslilly (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2020 (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.