Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfgott Research Institute


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Helfgott Research Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as appears to have significant coverage in some reliable sources, e.g. this. --Rubbish computer 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - the "significant coverage" referenced in the prior comment is a peripheral reference to a person's job. There is no substantive discussion of the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 14:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the results returned at News was not encouraging, nothing but several mentions. Newspapers was similarly void. However, when I got to the books search, it appears that this does pass both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In addition to the several citations I've added to the article, there are literally hundreds of mentions of the facility amongst the credentials of authors and study managers, which can be found on Google Books.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The parkinsonsnewstoday.com citation found by Rubbish computer is just a passing mention.  Regarding the Google Books query above, I looked at the first few; none of them impressed me as establishing notability.  All I saw was more passing mentions, and listing of author affiliations.  That's not enough.  Perhaps, Onel5969, you could list the 2 or 3 books which you feel best demonstrate notability of this organization, and why?  Note to closer; if you could, please leave this open another few days to allow time for  to respond.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi - I added them directly to the article. Didn't think I needed to add them here as well. Here they are:
 * The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, Second Edition
 * The Fiftysomething Diet
 * The Best 168 Medical Schools
 * Remapping Your Mind
 * НОВІ СЛОВА ТА СЛОВОСПОЛУЧЕННЯ АНГЛІЙСЬКОЇ МОВИ В ГАЛУЗІ МЕДИЧНОЇ НАУКИ ТА ПРАКТИКИ: АНГЛО-УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ СЛОВНИК
 * btw, your ping didn't work for some reason, just happened to be checking on the still outstanding oldest, and came on this. But as I was going through all the citations, I could have added citations for each of the assertions in the article. In addition, as I said above, even in the brief mentions, which are all in the credentials of researchers, one of their top, if not the top, credential, was their association with this institution. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing those. I looked at them all (well, OK, not the one in Russian).  Unfortunately, none of them look to me to be the kind of substantial coverage we require.  I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay with my delete call.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with RoySmith. I reviewed the four online English references and each only gave one minor reference to the subject. This does not qualify as substantial coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with RoySmith. I reviewed the four online English references and each only gave one minor reference to the subject. This does not qualify as substantial coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Institutes like this go thirteen a dozen. Only in-passing mentions. Does not meet GNG or NORG. --Randykitty (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - fails notabllity standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, fails notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and as Randykitty said, "Institutes like this go thirteen a dozen". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:57, 27 October 2015 (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.