Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience 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   no consensus, but since the content is covered at Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience I will be redirecting this article there. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The main institute is notable, the subdivisions, such as this one, are not. Our practice is to not make articles on institutes within departments within medical schools. We don't usually make for medical school or university departments either, but perhaps the main Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London is notable enough for that--I am not nominating it for deletion at this time. But going further does not seem appropriate.  DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are many articles on institutes within departments (e.g. UCL Institute for Global Health, UCL Institute of Child Health, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and more).--Chanpeter (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Edit - Definition of notability found.--Chanpeter (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * that there are others, n't mean we should have articles on them all, and it doesn't even mean that the articles on the others are appropriate. I'' take a look at them also. WP:N is pretty clear that even for subjects that would technically meet the definition of notability, they can also be combined in an article on a broader subject. That's especially true when there is only 1 ref that isn't from their own website, and the ref is actually to a particular grant for a specific part of this center.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nom's assessment is spot on. WP:OSE isn't a valid argument in this case, and there is simply not enough in-depth coverage to substantiate a standalone article.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:28, 15 December 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.