Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semmelweis Society

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. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semmelweis Society[edit]

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

Not notable Lewis (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this AfD was prompted by a discussion at Talk:Peter Duesberg regarding the appropriateness of mentioning the "Clean hands" award that this society presented to Duesberg in 2008. Upon further reflection, it became clear that the society itself may not even be notable enough to warrant an article. --Lewis (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a front for an AIDS denialist group - no other visibility. It may be notable in that context, and if so then the page should be refactored to describe the group more clearly. Otherwise, I'd agree with deletion. -- Scray (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete further searching has not revealed evidence of notability. -- Scray (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't been following this closely recently, but I recall that numerous contributors to the article seemed to have conflicts of interest and that the reliable sources were thin. On whatever grounds the Society was originally founded, it seems today to be exactly as Scray describes, and it's not particularly notable even in AIDS denialist circles. I am of course open to other interpretations if someone has reliable sources, but for now I wouldn't oppose deletion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability outside fringe interests not established. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought the Time article might be enough for notability, but it pretty much stands alone. The only things I find at Google News are press releases and POV opinion pieces. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. My searches were just as unsuccessful; I don't believe the sourcing exists to support an article on this subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:01, 21 April 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.