Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbicide Trials Network

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 due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microbicide Trials Network[edit]

[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)

One source in article seems more about the vaginal gel than the organisation. [1] is arguably not significant coverage. [2] covers two sentences worth and is not significant coverage either. I cannot find any other sources mentioning the organisation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Also nominating:

Because these two similarly turn up no independent scholar or news search results, and are both stubs.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you didn't search on Google Scholar or in paywalled academic journals. There is a decent amount of coverage of the organization and its activities, i.e. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9], which added together would be enough for GNG but probably not NORG.

I didn't thoroughly research the others, but I would say some sort of merge to an article about HIV/AIDS research would be superior to deletion, since there is encyclopedic content that can be written about them. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on google scholar, DDG and DDG news. I did not do a paywalled journal search. My concern is NORG, as I understand it, these organisations publish plenty of research, and the sources you provide could be used for vaginal microbicide for example. As far as a parent article to merge content, two options are Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination and/or Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. As can be seen at this image, the web of organisations is big, and these articles I nominated were just the ones in the cluster I couldn't find sources reporting about the organisation itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NORG coverage includes coverage of an organization's activities, such as organizing trials of vaginal microbicide (see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_substantial_coverage). The reason it may not count isn't because the content is irrelevant but it may not be in depth enough for NORG. While it's not necessarily trivial to find a merge target, WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered before an AfD if there is encyclopedic content worth preserving. I would support merging any of these to a parent/sponsoring organization or to HIV/AIDS research (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant, significant coverage for a topic unrelated to the org (the study objectives and the topic) and not enough coverage for the org and their specific research practices. On its own, I didn't think the three stubs have enough salvageable content to warrant a merge request since their sources are all either primary or not significant coverage, which is why I chose to nominate. But considering the sources you found, maybe the content is worth keeping through a merge when backed up by secondary sources, even if it's minor on its own. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Studies run by the org are not "unrelated to the org" any more than reviews of a restaurant's food are unrelated to the notability of the restaurant. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To meet NORG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT), we need at least two independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. To my understanding, the only difference between NORG and GNG is the condition that the sources are also secondary sources. Studies run by the org are not independent or secondary sources, so they cannot meet ORGCRIT. In any case, NORG generally overrides GNG as NORG is a subject specific notability guideline, although in both cases these are just guidelines and not policies.

Some restaurant reviews might meet NORG and GNG criteria based on their contents and sources; I am not sure how far to entertain the hypothetical other to say that "it depends". I had a brief glance at the sources you linked, as far as I could tell none of them were both independent and significant coverage. If you still believe the articles warrant keeping, I would kindly appreciate if you could list the top three (or perhaps just one) sources which meet this criteria.

The source Bluerasberry found is good, although it may not be secondary I am inclined to ignore that if we can find another source of similar quality. I would much rather keep these articles and expand them, and I concur with Bluerasberry that it is unfortunate these kind of orgs avoid media coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I started this article years ago. The organization closed in 2021 so there are unlikely to be new sources about the org. The org itself wrote a summary of its history; my guess is that it could have spent and consumed about US$100 million from its existence in 2005-2021, doing about 40 medical research trials in many countries, including 12,000 participants. The best reliable source I found about the org is from small town radio, which is nice and counts, but I always regret that these grand multinational, multigovernmental community research projects avoid all media attention. There are lots of sources about the organization's individual clinical trials and their outcomes. It is common practice on Wikipedia that when an individual artist gets attention for their art but not as a person that we keep the biography. When we have stubby articles like this about organizations which could only be built out by describing their programs but not the org itself, we typically delete. Medical papers do not make for good Wikipedia narratives. This org merged into the HIV Prevention Trials Network, which is much bigger. I could support a deletion or redirect/merge of the wiki content here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (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.