Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental 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 delete. - Bobet 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health
Non-notable organization, vanity article, most of website is non-functioning, unverifiable membership. THB 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Over 700 Ghits, an organisation that counts 3 Nobel laureates amongst its membership. A non-functioning website is not grounds for deletion of an article about a group that is not based in cyberspace. There is a hint of bad faith about this AfD nomination. --BillC 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, most of the Google hits are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, their press releases, or items planted by the parent organization. One must look beyond the number at the quality.  The membership is not confirmable including any of the Nobel laureates listed.  Indeed, having Nobel laureates as members does NOT make an organization notable, anyway, on its own.  This organization may be notable at some point in the future but it certainly is not at this time. -THB 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I've never really looked at this article before. If it is to be kept I think it has to be almost rewritten from scratch. There are no sources other than self sources (e.g, CSMMH and CSICOP websites). The "contributions to scholarship" section also seems questionable inasmuch as it consists solely of a few articles written for CSICOP's magazine (one of which amounts to nothing more than a summary of the criminal conviction on a non-related charge of a paranormal researcher involved in something they didn't like); and then a mention of the fact that a member of CSMMH was on a TV documentary once. I've been on TV in a number of countries playing international sport but I don't see an article about me. I think delete unless something more can be found and attributed to reputable sources.Davkal 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A search that excludes "Wikipedia" still gets 617 hits. The comment "unverifiable membership" could be said about any organization, including the Republican party. KarlBunker 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: KarlBunker gets 6,000 hits. Does that mean your username deserves an article? -THB 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note Notability (organizations) This org. utterly fails the criteria.
 * Delete per nom.--Peta 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Looking at the notability guidelines, this organisation seems to fall short. I would say delete now and recreate if assertions of notability can be made when someone has the time or inclination to. Localzuk(talk) 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While all articles must assert notability, it's a red flag when every word of an article seems to be an attempt to prove it. --Aaron 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article reads like a vanity page. While the subject is not without interest, I tried to see if their published articles (in their two journals) were having any impact, using Google Scholar.  Results were minimal.  EdJohnston 00:40, 2 October 2006 (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.