- 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 Move. Will move the page to List of research institutes in Seattle and allow editors to make changes described in this discussion J04n( talk page) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Washington Global Health Alliance
- Washington Global Health Alliance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the critiera in WP:ORG because there isn't sufficent coverage in independent, third party reliable sources where the Washington Global Health Alliance is the main subject. The Wikipedia article is three sentences, plus three long lists of names all of which are sourced to the subject's website and press releases. The only decent source is at Puget Sound Business Journal [1], and it's very short, under 300 words, and it's merely a routine announcement that the WGHA is moving -- see WP:ROUTINE Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I started this article some years ago and confirm that the organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This article is mostly a list, but its information is better captured in Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington. There is nothing left here to salvage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. If a creator agrees with deletion, as here, and there are not a lot of other contributions to an article, I would be inclined to agree to delete/redirect. But is there no Research institutes in Seattle article to redirect this to? Perhaps it should be moved to that name and edited. There could be information, such as redlinks and so on, about the topic of research institutes in Seattle that is NOT "captured in Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington". A list-article about them would complement the category and provide redlinks for articles that need to be created, and would provide a redirect target for the institutes that don't merit articles, and so on, per wp:CLT. So perhaps this should be moved or redirected, instead? -- do ncr am 23:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If the article were renamed "List of research institutes in Seattle" after Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington, then I would strip all the extraneous information from this article and adapt it for the new purpose. I do not want to modify this article so drastically before this discussion closes and I am not sure I should just cut and paste this content to start a new article like that, but if that seems acceptable, then I would do that. One source for such an article would be the list of members from Washington Global Health Alliance, which would be a better use in that article than as a self-published source here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge / redirect, is what i think is appropriate then. Thanks User:Bluerasberry for your further comments. I agree with you about hesitating with such a big change while the AFD is in progress, but it can be done at the conclusion of the AFD, if there's consensus enough. Either moving it and editing it to be about all research institutes would be fine, or maybe it is slightly better to redirect it and creating a brand new article at Research institutes in Seattle as target article. There is no list of research institutes per se in the U.S. yet, in Category:Research institutes in the United States, but it does seem to me that a list-article about the ones in Seattle is okay, as there are enough of them to make it worthwhile. Yes about using that source that way. And when someone creates a U.S.-wide list-article of research institutes they will obviously link to this one. We don't have to start by doing a U.S.-wide list; it's fine to start with one area like Seattle. -- do ncr am 16:02, 13 September 2014 (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.
- 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 Move. Will move the page to List of research institutes in Seattle and allow editors to make changes described in this discussion J04n( talk page) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Washington Global Health Alliance
- Washington Global Health Alliance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the critiera in WP:ORG because there isn't sufficent coverage in independent, third party reliable sources where the Washington Global Health Alliance is the main subject. The Wikipedia article is three sentences, plus three long lists of names all of which are sourced to the subject's website and press releases. The only decent source is at Puget Sound Business Journal [1], and it's very short, under 300 words, and it's merely a routine announcement that the WGHA is moving -- see WP:ROUTINE Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I started this article some years ago and confirm that the organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This article is mostly a list, but its information is better captured in Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington. There is nothing left here to salvage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. If a creator agrees with deletion, as here, and there are not a lot of other contributions to an article, I would be inclined to agree to delete/redirect. But is there no Research institutes in Seattle article to redirect this to? Perhaps it should be moved to that name and edited. There could be information, such as redlinks and so on, about the topic of research institutes in Seattle that is NOT "captured in Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington". A list-article about them would complement the category and provide redlinks for articles that need to be created, and would provide a redirect target for the institutes that don't merit articles, and so on, per wp:CLT. So perhaps this should be moved or redirected, instead? -- do ncr am 23:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If the article were renamed "List of research institutes in Seattle" after Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington, then I would strip all the extraneous information from this article and adapt it for the new purpose. I do not want to modify this article so drastically before this discussion closes and I am not sure I should just cut and paste this content to start a new article like that, but if that seems acceptable, then I would do that. One source for such an article would be the list of members from Washington Global Health Alliance, which would be a better use in that article than as a self-published source here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge / redirect, is what i think is appropriate then. Thanks User:Bluerasberry for your further comments. I agree with you about hesitating with such a big change while the AFD is in progress, but it can be done at the conclusion of the AFD, if there's consensus enough. Either moving it and editing it to be about all research institutes would be fine, or maybe it is slightly better to redirect it and creating a brand new article at Research institutes in Seattle as target article. There is no list of research institutes per se in the U.S. yet, in Category:Research institutes in the United States, but it does seem to me that a list-article about the ones in Seattle is okay, as there are enough of them to make it worthwhile. Yes about using that source that way. And when someone creates a U.S.-wide list-article of research institutes they will obviously link to this one. We don't have to start by doing a U.S.-wide list; it's fine to start with one area like Seattle. -- do ncr am 16:02, 13 September 2014 (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.