Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for OneWorld Health

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. Nakon 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for OneWorld Health[edit]

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

This article was created in 2008. There seems to have never been a time in its history when it was backed with citations to independent sources. It fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – See WP:NEXIST. Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship
OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship SMEs
The Search for Social Entrepreneurship
Social Problems
Novick & Morrow's Public Health Administration
Bioproperty, Biomedicine and Deliberative Governance
Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Project Management in a Changing Global Environment

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 I am not sure that even two of these feature this organization as the subject. They seem like incidental mentions. Could you, or would someone, just identify two good sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG, where it states in part that sources do "... not need to be the main topic of the source material". All of the sources I provided above are "good", because they provide significant coverage about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable from what I found. [1],[2] seem to discuss the organisation in detail. This [3] is an interview, but discussed the organisation as well. There are other sources, but I only looked for 3 independent and reliable sources where the organisation was the major focus of the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2016 (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.