Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Article can certainly be improved, but these medical organisations are generally notable.Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How? There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT #2 and a GNews search for "Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists" yield only 4 hits. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I regard the World Heart Federation, The Pioneer, the US cardiology review and The Hindu as reliable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I find one source, but that is probably "incidental coverage of a subject". Sdmarathe (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep After taking another look I find above source, those mentioned by Rathfelder and Gulf News to have established notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The source to Gulf News and including sources mentioned by Rathfelder above are all primary sources (close to an event) that provide nothing more than a passing mention and do not establish notability. As per WP:ORGDEPTH the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability and unfortunately, there is none that setisfy either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:NONPROFIT. Thank you. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I concur with Rathfelder, World Heart Federation, The Pioneer, the US cardiology review and The Hindu   makes this organisation pass WP:NONPROFIT-- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very rare for articles about this sort of clinical organisation to say anything in depth about them. Have a look at a few other articles under Category:Medical associations.  Apart from any other consideration, such discussion as there is is published in medical journals which are not available to the public. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2018 (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.