Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childhood Cancer Research Group


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Childhood Cancer Research Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subdivision of an academic department is not notable. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the group were a person, it would pass notability based on the Google Scholar citations listed at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Childhood+Cancer+Research+Group%22&btnG= Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fun fact, but this isn't a person. By that criteria, almost any academic department would probably be notable enough, which is not the case. We probably don't want tens of thousands of articles on academic divisions and working groups. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * delete blatant academic spam.Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of RS available for this, the organisation is referred to numbersiou times in Google scholar, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * handwavy "plenty of refs" is persuasive. You need to show them, and show that they are independent, and with significant discussion. See WP:NCORPJytdog (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NCORP, sources must be independent. Aearches in google scholar are most likely turn up affiliations of authors, not independent sources with significant discussion about the organization. A simply invalid !vote. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you sticking to google scholar? A simple news search demonstrates plenty of independent sources, some even critical, about the subject.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to actually show the refs. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this could probably be merged into Divisions_of_the_University_of_Oxford (an article that itself needs some fairly radical surgery) where it could be summarised in a few sentences. I'll volunteer to take care of that if it can be agreed on. Basie (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'll add some sources after this, there's definitely enough coverage for a standalone article.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying you will add refs later is not sufficient to keep an article. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

*Delete This is basically an advert. I also see COI concerns. 2Joules (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is the convention not to have articles about individual centers and departments, no matter how many are their accumulated publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.