Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Menopause and Andropause Society

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 no consensus. Nakon 05:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Menopause and Andropause Society[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, sources are entirely self-published. Recreation possible if it is shown as notable in the future. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've pursued PROD instead as my searches have simply found nothing better at all, nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the publisher of a monthly medical journal Maturitas which is frequently cited in news reports along with EMAS whenever there is a news report of something first published by EMAS in the journal. MB (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will accept that Maturitas is notable. Is the publishing organization necessarily notable as well? I'm not making a rhetorical point here... I literally want to know the answer. Notability usually doesn't inherit, but in this case, I think there's an argument for it, given that the things in the journal may necessarily represent the activities/views/etc of the publisher, and having more information on the publisher may thus be useful. I'd like to hear other wikipedian's views on this particular case. Fieari (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example that sounds to me like this publisher is more significant than the publication: "European Menopause and Andropause Society Publishes Position Statement about the Post-reproductive Health of Women. The statement, published in Maturitas, covers the management of the menopause in the context of history of venous thromboembolism" MB (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maturitas; if the journal is notable and the publisher is questionable, it's better to preserve the information by putting it in the former. ansh 666 02:35, 1 July 2016 (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.