Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center on Media and Child 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. Ged UK  13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Center on Media and Child Health

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Delete based upon lack of notability. I am seeing very minor references in the news media- in passing- but nothing that demonstrates the notability of this organization. Basket of Puppies 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Children's Hospital Boston. The article lists a lot of references but they are mostly citations to studies published by the center; none of them is coverage ABOUT the center as required by notability requirements. Google News provides dozens of hits but they are all passing mentions, mostly just identifying someone they are quoting, as in "So-and-so of the Center on Media and Child Health said..."; again, no in-depth coverage by independent sources. The merge should be only a sentence, not the vast amount of information in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Though a merge/redirect to Children's Hospital Boston sounds great at first glance, the actuality of the situation is that “Center on Media and Child Health” is only based at the hospital. There is no mention of an affiliation with the hospital other than sharing an address.  With regards to a keep opinion, though the nominator is correct in stating “…very minor references in the news media- in passing” the policy for Notability does go on to say “… The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability”.  This can easily be fulfilled by a simple Google News search, as shown here  where organizations from the New York Times and Fox News to the Globe and Mail and the BBC report on the Centers findings.  In addition, the Center is cited and named in numerous Google Scholar papers, as shown here /  Finally, a Google Book search shows quite a few references to the organization, as provided here .  Likewise the article itself is cited.  Taken in all, the organization has fulfilled our requirements for inclusion here at Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Shoessss. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge/redir would be very fine with me. Basket of Puppies  15:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most of Shoessss' "sources" are merely passing mentions or self-written bio blurbs, which are absolutely useless for establishing notability.  (How much of an article could you write based on "Dr Jones was quoted in this newspaper, and they apparently employed a Dr Smith, who was willing to speak to the media...")  However, Murray's Children and television: Fifty years of research (ISBN 9780805841398) actually says something directly about the organization's founding and activities, which is an actual indication of notability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2010 (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.