Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences


 * 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 redirect to Polish Academy of Sciences. Those arguing to keep failed to state any policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Eldizzino with the following rationale "notable". Well, a good start to proving that would be adding references. I can't find anything but passing mentions (and the Institute's own history of page). Yes, this Institute exists but why should it be in an encyclopedia? We are not Yellow Pages. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * QUOTE from Polish Academy of Sciences: The Polish Academy of Sciences, headquartered in Warsaw, is the top Polish institution having the character of an academy of sciences. Being a society of distinguished scholars as well as a network of research institutes, it is responsible for spearheading the development of science in Poland. It was established in 1951, during the period of Poland People's Republic.
 * It is THE institute for Pharmacology of the PAS. Then look what you have for ONE USA university alone: Category:University of Michigan. Then look what you have in Michigan: Category:Universities and colleges in Michigan. Then look Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by state.
 * Could it really be, that it is less "notable" than every single item in this USA-category. Yes, of course it could. But could it also be that, there is some cultural/language bias present here? Eldizzino (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not really a valid argument. But I'll try to AfD at least one of those Michgan articles, too, if it makes you feel better. CAMiLEON looks about right. And I added Camp CAEN for good measure. I am sure there are more. We should delete such articles, not add more to them. Again: this is an encyclopedia, not a directory listing for every organization out there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think I fixed the problems. Please take a second look. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how, User:Poeticbent? I still see primary sources for in-depth coverage, and otherwise, passing mentions. Yes, this Institute exists, nobody denies it. But why is it important enough to be in an encyclopedia? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively and Redirect to Polish Academy of Sciences. The main article has plenty of room for information about its different parts. No need to spin this off to its own article -- and certainly not based on the sources currently provided, which as points out are largely primary. I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for keeping. If the material should exist somewhere on Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily mean it should have its own article. I will note, however, that The Pharmacological Reports, one of its journals, meets WP:JOURNALCRIT#2 and so could likely sustain a stand-alone article itself. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Polish Academy of Sciences as usual for academic institutes. Article shows no independent notability.  Sandstein   07:39, 18 July 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.