Similar articles

None of the above articles have references to establish notability, so they all violate WP:CORP to the max. Yet nobody has marked them for deletion. Guido den Broeder 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX - comments like that one are completely irrelevant to AFD discussions. WLU 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "other articles are just as bad" is a canonical example of an irrelevant AfD argument. Of course, if you truly feel those organizations are not notable according to WP:ORG, then it's your prerogative to nominate them for deletion. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. First of all, WP:WAX is not a policy, but an essay. Second, it appears that you did not actually read what the essay says: "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this."

Now, you would have a point if everything was spelled out in WP:CORP, but that is not the case. Therefore, a comparison with similar articles should provide some information on when proof of notability is usually considered present. If it appears that different, unwritten standards are applied to ME/CFS patient organizations than to other patient organizations, then the validity of those standards can be questioned. Guido den Broeder 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell, once again: please do not mispresent my motives. I was perfectly happy with the article as it was, remember? It is you, rather, who is now expected to consider tagging those other articles for deletion. If you do, I will vote to keep. Guido den Broeder 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would have an argument if people had argued that these other articles should be kept even without any sources, but that the Vereniging on the other hand should be deleted. But no one has argued that. These other articles may need to be similarly deleted, or they may need to have their notability established with the available sources. They certainly aren't exemplary articles as they stand. But these articles being unchallenged so far isn't a reason to keep (or delete) this one.Fram 09:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is true. However, one can nonetheless wonder why these articles are unchallenged, and they can perhaps be helpful to establish when, in the case of patient organizations, notability can be assumed or considered proven. I'd like to hear arguments. Guido den Broeder 10:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When they meet the requirements in WP:CORP or WP:NOTE, obviously. An article like National Breast Cancer Coalition desperatley needs sources, but is obviously notable if the statements made in the article can be sourced to independent reliable sources. One can e.g. be sourced with an article in Time magazine[1]. They are not the main focus of these articles, but inbetween the 79 times they are mentioned in the New York Times [2], there will probably be enough info to establish notability. The 643 hits in Google Scholar[3] may help as well. So I would say that for the National Breast Cancer Coalition, notability can be assumed, and with some more work, it can easily be proven. Now, this one is probabnly at the top end of notability for such organizations, and there will always be a grey area between the least notable still acceptable for Wikipedia, and the most notable not acceptable for Wikipedia, but it is clear that it is not impossible to find lots of mainstream and scientific sources establishing notability for such organizations. Fram 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When no editors can be bothered to add sources or nominate for deletion, an article is generally safe. But being unchallenged can mean a lot of things. It can mean that everybody knows the org and feels the article content is verifiable. Or that no one ever looks at it. An interesting aspect can be the number of editors, as well as arguments made (see each article's history and talk page). Controversial subjects will often receive more attention than uncontroversial ones. A common denominator here is not whether or not a subject is a patient org, but whether or not it represents a majority/minority/tiny minority view. And the bottom line would be that arguments to keep a specific unsourced article may translate to another article; but not the fact that another unsourced article exists. Avb 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram, this is helpful. It seems to me that a coalition stands a better chance. What if we combined the Dutch ME/CFS organizations into a single article? Guido den Broeder 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three non notables do not add up to one notable. An existing coalition like the NBCC is different from an artificial grouping of similar organizations, like you propose. Are there reliable indepth sources addressing the three organisations as a group? Something like "The three ME/CVS patient organisations have..." or so? I don't think that the problems we currenttly have will be solved by combining the three, but I may be proven wrong of course. Fram 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a few. But the angle could be slightly different, e.g. "ME/CFS patient advocacy in The Netherlands". That way we could also include some history, like the ME Fonds which is no longer in existence. Guido den Broeder 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>That would seem to be a case of three coatracks being emptied to set up one REALLY BIG coatrack, and possibly full of OR. If the page is deleted, I'd suggest you draft said patient advocacy page on a subpage rather than creating it and populating it with cut-and-pastes from the currently up for deletion article. Seeing that there are three articles on patient advocacy organizations in the Netherlands, then jumping to the statement that it's a big thing there is a bit of a stretch, and in my guess, would be very OR-ish. There would need to be sources stating that the three of them actually work together or form some sort of united (or disunited) front for patient advocacy in the Netherlands. WLU 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]