Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHOQOL-DIS

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. causa sui (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHOQOL-DIS

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

Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU research project and article written in grant-application language rather than English: The aim of the project: to develop an instrument to measure quality of life in people with intellectual and physical disabilities. The name of the new measure - WHOQOL-DIS. Project is supported by World Health Organization (WHO). New attitudes to disabilities (ADS) questionnaire will be developed as well based on unique WHO methodology of simultaneous intercultural approach. No sources to show that anything they have developed has been adopted by anyone. There is an offsite project dedicated to the insertion of articles about these projects without any guidance as to which, if any, are actual encyclopedia subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I commented earlier against one of these projects (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISTAG) that they might be rolled-up into a list under Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. It is a bit disturbing to find that this may be a systematic use of English Wikipedia as a project index repository. Perhaps the University of Leipzig brigade might be asked to change tack? ("Ask what you can do for Wikipedia, not what Wikipedia can do for you") AllyD (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Writing of this sort does not mean the subject is not caqpable of supporting an article, not even that the existing text could not be rapidly rewritten, just as any other form of sub-standard English. I don't think it's reasonable to use that alone for judging an article. The question is, is there any actual substance there? I'm not really inclined to investigate in detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this research project has been the subject of coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 01:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I see 19 hits in Google Scholar, including four articles directly on the topic of WHOQOL-DIS, and several others that reference those primary articles. On the other hand, the coverage in Google-Web is pretty thin. This is borderline notability. The key sources include:

Using the WHOQOL-DIS to Measure Quality of Life in Persons with Physical Disabilities Caused by Neurodegenerative Disorders -
Specific Quality of Life Assessment Instrument for People with Disabilities: The WHOQOL‐DIS Module
Development of the WHOQOL disabilities module
The response scale for the intellectual disability module of the WHOQOL: 5‐point or 3‐point?

Even though these are only four sources, they are academic journals, which weigh more heavily than casual books, newspapers, or magazines, which are routinely used to support notability. Based on these sources, I'd lean towards Keep. As DGG says above: work is needed to improve the article, but based on these four sources, there is plenty of material to do so. --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have a look at my -immature- notes here. I don't think these sources establish notability, per analogy with WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but weak) I agree with Noleander above and found the same references. While they are few/weak enough to make this a "gray" area of sorts, it is enough to keep. Or at the least enough for MO to believe that more and better sources will emerge with a bit o' time. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is 2 years old and yet has ZERO real references. No in-line citations, and the "references" section is just "for further reading" stuff, at least 4 of the 5 refer to their own materials. But it's a stub on a project that probably could meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your arguments more sound like "delete" than "keep", even if only weakly. No references have come forward in 2 years, why would they come now? --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Actually we have just said we found some references. It is not our job to add these references to the article. That's why they are brought up here and not on the article talk page or added to the article directly. I myself simply have little/no interest in the subject and subsequently have little/no expertise in it. References have not been added in 2 years. That is not to say they have not been seen/found. It's just a matter of someone coming along who cares enough about the article to incorporate them. Of course we can always discuss the few sources found too. It's no problemo! tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, the sourcing is not just weak, it doesn't sustain notability, only establishes this is not a hoax. Also, europrojectcruft.--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (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.