Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience[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)

This is essentially a promotional wen page for the organization. I have not been able to find references that meet WP:NCORP. I recognize that intuitively it ought to be considered important, DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but consider reinstating if the author adds some appropriate sources. It's not ipso facto non-notable. Athel cb (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article needs references but that does not mean it should be deleted. A cursory google search shows multiple references to work carried out in the centre and published this year in reputable sources like Scientific American, Psychology Today, and EurekAlert!Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other language article does not add much in the way of references or claims of notability but a google book search returns a plethora of places they subject is used as a reference one of many examples Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NORG (the relevant guideline) and the WP:GNG. I'm a bit puzzled about this nomination. The Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, its predecessors, and their research have been covered extensively by Dutch national media since 1904. As it is affiliated with the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, a case could be made to merge a shorter article into the parent. But this article isn't short. Next, it's absolutely fine for the nominator and the first respondent not to be great in source research in a foreign language and in a foreign country. I'm 100% with them! I do not understand how that becomes an AfD or support for an AfD. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously wonder whether a WP:BEFORE has been performed, because a simple search produces an endless amount of academic journals, CNN, NPR, The Lancet. Indeed the current article is not well referenced, and even forgot it's native name which produces an equally impressive list of search results. The institute meets WP:GNG, WP:NORG without any problems.

Also four national Dutch newspapers use this institute as a tag de Volkskrant: [1] De Telegraaf: [2] Trouw: [3] & Parool: [4] That only should meet GNG if national newspapers tag all the article from one organisation. KittenKlub (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, there are enough sources present. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (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.