Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Research Foundation

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

The page contains no assertion of notability, no indication that it has received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. It's substantial claim to fame appears to be the publication of a single book in 1992 (The Clinical and scientific basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) which has been discussed on the RSN and found by all but one editor to be generally unreliable due to self-publication and only to be used with great care. Otherwise, searches by myself and another editor found no coverage in reliable, independent sources to indicate it is notable per WP:CORP. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note a google news search produces 4 hits,, which seem to mention, but do not discuss NRF - they are more accurately described as discussing Dr. Hyde as founder of NRF. Perhaps Dr. Hyde is notable, but NRF does not seem to be.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep Here is a google search that produces 4000+ hits. The article is in bad shape, but it shouldn't be too hard to improve it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not a measure of anything regards notability, see GOOGLE and WP:GHITS.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Searching for "Nightingale Myalgic Encephalomyelitis" isn't going to give you accurate results. We're establishing the notability of the foundation, not the disease. This foundation is not notable for inclusion on en-wiki per nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you did't look at the search results. It's for nightingale "myalgic encephalomyelitis", btw. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion here, but I get 97 unique hits for .  (Yours, by the way, gave me around 11,500 hits but only 480 unique hits.)  I reiterate, though, that I have no opinion on notability.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  16:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You made a common spelling error: encephalitis instead of encephalomyelitis. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look at the search results and I can't see any mention of Nightingale Research Foundation that isn't an unbiased source from Hyde. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The corrected spelling gives 493 unique hits.  (Not that it matters much, which is why I still have no opinion.)   Anturiaethwr  Talk  19:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not adequately verifiable from third-party sources. JFW | T@lk  16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So should the article be moved to Byron Hyde? I added the references mentioned by . --Eastmain (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility. The foundation is mainly mentioned for two publications by Hyde and his evidence to the Gibson inquiry. Other Nightingale researchers such as Martin seem less notable. On the other hand, the foundation seems well known in the legal circuit. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In order for the page to be merged, Byron Hyde would have to be created, which passes the buck to whether he is notable. If so, I have no problem with NRF being a sub-heading.  Note that I have removed three of the references for not acutally referencing any information on the page, and embedded one of the remaining.  See here for details.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced the last one with an online interview. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment a request for a translation of this newspaper article (titled "The Invisible Disease") was made through WikiProject Norway. As an article in Norway's second largest newspaper, Aftenposten, it describes how 10,000 people in the country have chronic fatigue syndrome, but they are often wrongly diagnosed (usually being asked to exercise more by their doctors). It further discusses how Ullevål University Hospital is creating a competence center on the disease. It does not mention the Nightingale Research Foundation, but says that a certain Byron M. Hyde will hold a two day lecture in Oslo (not specified where) on the topic. Quote from text: "He is the greatest competence on the fatigue syndrome." No more about him is mentioned. Arsenikk (talk)  20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say the article in itself is thin proof of notability, especially because of the weasel-ly wording. Punkmorten (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the page has been moved to Byron Hyde. I've no idea if we re-start the AFD or just keep going.  Also note that the page is now mostly a coatrack for NRF. Fixed.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 20:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I went ahead and moved the article to Byron Hyde, and restored some references which referred to him more than the foundation. The Quirks & Quarks page is not a full transcript, but indicates the topics on which he speaks and for how long. --Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that Byron Hyde has already been deleted a year ago (Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde). WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete. Not notable, not sufficient depth of WP:RS, self-published.  I expect most things that mention them do so to refute them, and not in sufficient depth of independent sources to establish notability, but only one of many other groups and self publishing POV pushing foundations, in passing. Sticky Parkin 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. No rs covering foundation, only a few kinda-rs mentioning it. When you have to use an "online interview" as your main source, time to delete. RetroS1mone   talk  00:53, 18 September 2008 (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.