Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPP-SHR


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

IPP-SHR

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:NOTE, lacks third party sources to establish notability as a notable research program (amongst the 1000s out there) Michellecrisp (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Michellecrisp (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE I am the article's primary author. I am a part-time research assistant, and am a newbie to wikipedia editing, so please excuse my lack of familiarity with the process.  IPP-SHR is a non commercial research organisation whose work is dedicated to the promotion of consumer advocacy in the areas of physical and mental illness.  It is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and CQUniversity, and it was the intention to create an entry for those who searched Wikipedia wanting to know what IPP-SHR is and does.  IPP-SHR has an international audience who subscribe to podcasts and a quarterly review, free of charge to the researchers, students and academics who are interested in psycho-social research.  I understand and agree with the rationale against POV articles, but would argue that the entry is factual and encyclopaedic in nature, and is devoid of values or opinion.  IPP-SHR is not a one-off research project, and is not motivated by profit or in the nature of a commercial enterprise. I believe it has merit to be included as a Wikipedia entry, as it is an organisation that has generated a significant number of publications, a quarterly review and podcast interviews with notable researchers in the field. A reference to a third party source has since been added to the IPP-SHR page, refering to an article in the CQUniversity website, in particular an article in the CQUniNews published on 26 May 2008 regarding the launch of IPP-SHR's free podcasting program at the end of last year. Thanks for your consideration.Bouwork (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete Per nomination, can't find any references to the group in the mainstream media or in WP:RS. Mvjs   Talking  09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can find plenty of references to the group in reliable sources. Catastrophic bleeds during end-of-life care in haematology: controversies from Australian research Journal: Supportive Care in Cancer; Tough Journey For Families Of Children With Lymphoma “I was never like that”: Australian findings on the psychological and psychiatric sequelae of corticosteroids in haematology treatments Medical News Today; Western Notions of Informed Consent and Indigenous Cultures: Australian Findings at the Interface; Journal of Bioethical Inquiry; Family care giving for Aboriginal peoples during end-of-life: Findings from the Northern Territory. Journal of Rural and Tropical Public Health 7: 1-10 (2008); Blood cancers research. Australian Nursing Journal ... --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Just goes to show what a different set of search parameters will find.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is not a national program, but a single faculty group, not even a cooperative multi-faculty project. --it is funded by the Australian National Research council, but its a program actually limited to one college within  Central Queensland University a regional university of no great international reputation. Its no more a national project than any of the other thousands of demonstration grants funded by them and similar organisations in other nations, and of course they all produce publications.    It seems to be centered around a single notable academic, Pam McGrath, who should have a page in WP where this is mentioned as one of her projects. As far as I can tell, not one other person associated with it has even a PhD, let alone a notable career. And, curiously, her name comes first on all the paper published from it; furthermore, almost none of one of them is from a major journal or major scientific publisher.  Straight-out self-advertising for McGrath's own work. The arguments of Bouwork, a paid employee of the project, that it is not commercial, is irrelevant. Public relations is public relations, and commercial or noncommercial it  is equally unsuitable for an encyclopedia.


 * 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.