Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suitcase Clinic


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Suitcase Clinic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the WP:NORG level of notability from a quick check and it is almost entirely based off of a University of California, Berkeley student newspaper. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dwaro, below Delete per WP:NORG. Multiple mentions of varying degree in local papers . The Academic Medicine article is the only one that appears to provide NORG-level coverage; however, it appears to be written by authors associated with the organization, making it unsuitable for NORG. userdude 03:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Academic Medicine article appears to be written by one of the organizers of the program, making it not independent (per WP:ORGIND). The berkeleyside article is written by a "Guest contributor". The Street Spirit article appears to be valid for NORG. userdude 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC); struck per Graywalls (below) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * reply . #1, no, because "The article originally appeared on Berkeley News, published by UC Berkeley ." #2 is a no, because Street Spirit is a local, specialized paper "Street Spirit is an independent newspaper in the East Bay dedicated to covering homelessness and poverty from the perspective of those most impacted ". meaning they focus on issues that are about or important to the specific audience in the local area, which means that it fails WP:AUD criterion of NCORP. #3, finally the journal is also a no because ALAN STEINBACH, MD, JOHN SWARTZBERG, MD, AND VERONA CARBONE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment follow up, please have a look at their website as well as WP:ORGIND policy which explains what's considered DEPENDENT coverage on Wikipedia:"any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly". I am wondering if you realized Suitcase Clinic is ran by UC Berkeley and the two of the sources you said are independent are related to UC Berkeley at the time you placed your input. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment follow up, please have a look at their website as well as WP:ORGIND policy which explains what's considered DEPENDENT coverage on Wikipedia:"any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly". I am wondering if you realized Suitcase Clinic is ran by UC Berkeley and the two of the sources you said are independent are related to UC Berkeley at the time you placed your input. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry for the delay. Upon further consideration, I am comfortable with changing my vote to Delete per the notes mentioned by the other editors. Further research have yielded mentions in other scientific journals but not as a primary subject. –
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I agree with User:BriefEdits their evaluation. Dwaro (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you're changing to Delete then?  HighKing++ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment, how did you come to conclude the sources are independent when they're clearly dependent? Graywalls (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see my new comment beneath. Dwaro (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is to regional, closely associated with the organization, and also mostly comes from blogs. Non of that passes WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge I have looked at some other articles about organizations related to the University of California. More of them have more of less the same issue as this article. I would suggest merging them together, so it can meet the WP:GNG as a single article. This could included Associated Students of the University of California, Bear Transit, University of California Jazz Ensembles, CalTV, California Golden Overtones and maybe more. The new article could be named Organizations related to the University of California or something like that. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ,The question earlier to you was not addressed which prompted me to look a bit closer. Your contribution pattern where in 8 or 9 of AfDs, only ones in which I've participated or created, but the timing of your "keep" inputs are so close together that it suggests actual research wasn't done on your part to come up with "keep" input. It seems peculiar that the you and another editor independently concluded incorrectly the same way at the same time. I maintain my position on delete. Opting for merge would encourage the culture of creating a bunch of non-notable thing, then resisting deletion by diverting them to "merge" only after "keep" argument can not be sustainedGraywalls (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Graywalls. They might have been close to each other, but I have evaluated the sources of those articles. Even if my viewpoints disagree with the consensus, a discussion happens, which is a good thing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, no problems arise from keeping articles that are properly sourced. Dwaro (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2020 (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.