Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Institute of Women's Health

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. Go Phightins! 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Institute of Women's Health[edit]

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

This organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The only link provided in the article now is a link to their own website, and most Google results are either primary sources or unreliable ones. Google Books turns up mainly passing mentions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:N. Basie (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interested in this contraversy as I wrote the original entry for this organisation. They are in the European public health area and have done much work in regards to women's health for example, the Cancom project was developed from the fact that a very small percentage of women were in the 1995/6 times part of the internet audience. Cancom was their attempt at putting this onto the net to demonstrate to women what sort and value of information could be generated and disseminated through this medium. With regards to their website it currently has in the region of just under 1000 backlinks from other organisations. The documents that they originate have direct inputs from many of the leading experts (in their field) and organisations in their specific areas of expertise. Their website currently has over 1400 pages mostly put there by volunteer supporters after the annual cull of older information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaguire (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is are at least passing mentions in the news. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded it a bit, the organisation is more notable than the article suggests. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. This stub still needs more work. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Everymorning and Basie, thoughts on the new sources? czar ⨹ 02:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are they in the article now? If so, I'm currently looking at the "Social Construction" one on Google Books. I can't look at pages 151-154 (only 150), but it's just included on a list of other women's interest groups on that page, so while it's possible that the other pages I can't look at talk about it more, I'm not sure if that's significant enough coverage to count toward notability, at least very much. Then there's "Women's Health in Europe", which just mentions the organization rather than talk about it in depth. I'm not sure this meets the requirement of depth of coverage needed for notability (WP:ORG). Everymorning talk to me 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above analysis and a search with Google Scholar reveals a number of academic articles that cite the institute. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Needs some heavy cleanup, but it should be kept. BenLinus1214 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (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.