Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. Clear consensus not to retain the article. Any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect if they so desire. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases[edit]

Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt this research institute in notable. It fails WP:NORG by not having independent coverage of its activities. Currently, the article is composed of unsourced puffery about how great CRND is (no mergeable material), with one citation to a website run by the research institute. The best sources that could be found so far was this [1] article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It details that Peter St. George-Hyslop (a director at the centre) made an important discovery relating to Early-onset Alzheimer's disease at the university, more specifically a gene that causes most cases of it. However, the article deals exclusively with Peter St. George-Hyslop, and does not even mention CRND. While Hyslop is certainly notable, WP:INHERITORG makes it clear that the Centre does not inherit notability solely because one person made some important discoveries while working there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BRANCH-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this clearly fails WP:BRANCH and other relevant notability guidelines. Since everything about it is extremely trivial and on other things. So from what I can tell there's no valid reason to keep it. I don't even think it would be worth a redirect since the article title is way to general to be a useful redirect term. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent sources, evidence of notability, and evidence of the primary claim about research. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:25, 14 December 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.