Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted as a PRDO. The reason was " I have, at present, found no sources to verify that this organisation is notable. It has a web site, but Google News (for example) has trouble identifying reliable sources that discuss the organisation. There are primary sources, but, if this organisation has notability it would, surely, feature in news items. I'm happy to be proven to be incorrect, and that sources exist that I haven't been able to find, so I am choosing the PROD mechanism as a slow burn deletion route that allows article improvement to meet our need for verification of notability." The PROD was uncontested.

The article has now been returned to main article space at user request. Since this is, effectively, a contested PROD, I am bringing it to AfD under the same rationale. Userfying the article would be an acceptable outcome. Fiddle  Faddle  11:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with deletion. Found a couple mentions of it in books/journal articles, e.g. nih.gov pubmed link, but they turned out to be written by one of the organization's principals (M.T. Wright) or about promotional-sounding efforts by Wright or the organization. The word "for" in the article should probably be "on", but neither turned up anything noteworthy. Agyle (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2013 (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.