Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

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 delete. as WP:TOOSOON for an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine[edit]

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

I think this fails the WP:GNG requirement and the WP:NONPROFIT criteria for lacking secondary sources. The organization is under formation as of 2012, and while it appears to be national or international in scope, I am unable to find any independent coverage of it or its founding. Batard0 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no independent sourcing about this organization at all. Maybe it's too new to have made much impact yet, but until it does, it does not meet WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't seem to be any independent sourcing (even after looking through free and non-free databases), also fails WP:notability. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (CONEM) is still under establishment, and has therefore not made so much impact yet. Can you help me to rescue the article. How can it be better? What is needed? Leave a message —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 15 October 2012 (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.