Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence that this organisation, while worthy, meets notability criteria. All the references are either self-published, or very minor (i.e. a single sentence).  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, of which this appears to be a subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to "keep", see below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The article cites several peer-reviewed journals and relies only on Global Fund references when citing specific Board decisions and background information on the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Icarus7994 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The AMFm is currently one of the most-debated initiatives in global health - it has been covered by many independent and reliable sources. However, many of these sources are themselves quite biased (pro and con), especially when compared to the AMFm website. As the author of the AMFm Wikipedia article, I opted to use the AMFm website as the reference for the key events and descriptions of the model. However, I will re-edit to add more independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New reference just added: as part of the Copenhagen Consensus, a panel of Nobel Laureate economists concluded that AMFm was one of the best investments to advance global welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to the points raised by Icarus7994: I appreciate your passion for the subject. But this subject just doesn't seem to have the required significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Looking at the 22 references provided at the article: the press release from the Copenhagen Consensus does in fact mention the AMFm, but it seems to be the only independent mention. Of the other 21 references, 12 are from non-independent sources: 8 to the Global Fund and another 4 to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, which also seems to have an originating or managing relationship to AMFm and could also be a target for a redirect. 3 references are to peer reviewed journals, 1 to a book, 2 to the World Health Organization, and 1 to a press release from the National Academy of Science, but they all appear to be general information about malaria; it doesn't look as if any of them mention the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria. The remaining 2 references are dead links. My opinion remains that this organization or initiative or plan or however you would describe it is not independently notable, but should be redirected and merged to either The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria or Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I will go back and update the entry with more links from independently verifiable sources. Off the top of my head, the AMFm has been covered in both the New York Times and Nature - both of those are high impact factor and should address some of the notoriety and independent coverage concerns. I will also make sure the existing references are more explicitly linked to the content on AMFm, instead of malaria in general. I appreciate your interest in this - it is only making the article stronger. --Icarus7994 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you can find significant coverage by sources like the New York Times and Nature, that will make a strong case for this project's notability. You might also want to clarify its relationship to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken a quick look at [Google News Archive]. That shows 41 hits, however, a look through them seems to show that they are all basically press releases about events the organisation are involved with, or press releases about their projects. I couldn't find any NYT coverage, and unfortunately the article in Nature about them does not appear to be available online, so I cannot judge the content. I do note that the only result from Nature is a letter of complaint that Nature's article did "not provide a balanced picture of the evidence pertaining to the proposed approach adopted by AMFm". I can still find no evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments (noted: clarify RBM connection). I have not had time to re-work the article this week but will try to do so over the weekend. However, in the meantime, here are the links to the NY Times and Nature articles I was planning to include: [NY Times] and [Nature1] and [Nature2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the 2010 Nature article that the letter of complaint references either. For me, the 41 hits on Google News (which is not even a complete list, since at least the NY times and Nature articles do not appear in it) do demonstrate notoreity and coverage by independent sources. How many other Wikipedia article subjects have endorsement by two sets of Nobel laureates, coverage in the NY Times plus two of the top-10 impact factor journals (Lancet and Nature), and represent an investment of over 300 million USD in a way that has not been tried before? I believe there has likely been significant local press coverage of AMFm in the African countries where it has been implemented. Would it be helpful to include these as references as well (as long as they are available online)? Or should my focus be on peer-reviewed journal and international press? Thanks for your help! --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of establishing notability, your best evidence would be items from the international press and from major general-interest journals - as long as they are "substantial coverage" and not merely a mention or a technical report. It would also help the article if you could reduce the number of citations to the Global Fund itself, by replacing them with citations from third-party publications. Congratulations on your good research here, you have persuaded me to change my opinion to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick search of the Financial Times and found quite a few AMFm mentions: [Financial Times] I will be sure to include these as references. --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the new sources provided by Icarus7994, such as this one from Nature which I have added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the NYT item to the article as well. These two references by themselves are enough to establish notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.