Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging

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. Neil ☎ 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME/CVS Vereniging

Patients' group for chronic fatigue syndrome patients in the Netherlands. Article largely written by Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs), who is on the organisation's board[1] and has been warned in the past on WP:COI. No mention of membership, largely a WP:COATRACK on a much larger issue, namely the exact cause and management of CFS. That issue is already spelled out clearly in the CFS article. For these reasons, I propose delete of this article. JFW | T@lk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of sources, but very few of them are reliable independent sources, and those are to me not enough to establish real notability. The Vereniging has not been shown to be the subject of much attention by the media, and has mainly been mentioned in passing or by sending in a letter. Being heard in a few government decisions is not an indication of notability for Wikipedia, as far as I am concerned. The blatant COI is of course negative, but not in itself a reason for deletion. Fram 08:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, why do you consider national organizatons like CG-Raad, NPCF, ZonMw unreliable? The claim of notability is based on, in addition to media coverage:
  - The fact that major national organizations consider the Vereniging notable;
  - The fact that a scientific journal considers the Vereniging notable;
  - The fact that the Vereniging is innovative and a leader in the field of patient organizations;
  - The fact that it is a participant in the development of the Dutch multidiscilinary guideline (rather than 'being heard').
- Of course this is potentially biased, but a denial of notability should at least address the claim. Guido den Broeder 09:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPCF is a directory. It shows that ME/CSV is considered genuine, not necessarily that it is notable. The ME/CVS Stichting is a member of the CG-Raad, the Vereniging isn't. But they have heard the Vereniging when developing a protocol. I have not found the evidence that the Vereniging is any more involved with ZonMw either. So point 1 is gone, point 2 is based on that letter you get printed as a reply to an article they ran, point 3 is your opinion, and for point 4, all I have found is that they are being heard. In my opinion, the sources in the article don't support the claim that this is a notable group. Fram 10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit further, it appears that the Vereniging was part of an invitational conference by ZonMw on March 20, 2007, and in general ZonMw notes that the patient organisations are involved in the development of the guideline. So this may indicate that your fourth point at least is correct. In my opinion this isn't sufficient as a claim to notability, but other people may disagree. Fram 11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to follow the link to the 3B Platform. Guido den Broeder 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you might now by now, I have done that before. This is the one where the Vereniging was only heardsee page 93, and complained about that in a letter (see "commentaar op concept..." here[2]). Or was there anything else you wanted to point to? Fram 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the main point, that the Vereniging is part of a select group of patient organizations for various disorders that develops common policy on guidelines. Guido den Broeder 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where on the 3B Platform pages does it say that? It would be very helpful if you provide a link, instead of setting me on a wild goose chase. Fram 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the top, where it says 'het project' ... Guido den Broeder 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent)If you mean the first link on this page[3], it doesn't mention the Vereniging, and it is this one where the Vereniging complained about only being heard afterwards. If you mean somethign else, link to it. Fram 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Right below is the list of the participating organizations. Guido den Broeder 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing new there. These are the organisations that afterwards complained that they were only heard instead of really "developing common policy", just like I said from the beginning. I don' think I'll comment here again, unless something really new appears. Repeating old arguments is a waste of time. Fram 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are the organizations that participate in the Platform to develop a common policy. Guido den Broeder 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now well-sourced and I wouldn't know what more needs to be added to the press attention, recognition by government, key institutions and scientists, memberships, publications, accomplishments, etc., before notability is accepted. Keep in mind that notability is always relative. This is not a football club, so you may not have heard of it, but patients, media, scientists, clinicians, government and institutions in The Netherlands have. Guido den Broeder 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I consider the suggestive comments above a leap of bad faith by JFW. The article has nothing to do with any ongoing discussion elsewhere and existed long before that. I did not recreate it, as JFW claims on my discussion page; that is a blatant lie. Nor has there been a 'warning in the past on WP:COI'. It was speedily deleted somewhat hastily and put back on my request. Subsequently, several users have worked together to establish notability. It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV, and I request to deal with him accordingly. PS: I am not on the board of the Vereniging. Guido den Broeder 08:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note further that the provided reason for deletion (coatrack) is neither specified nor a valid reason for deletion. Guido den Broeder 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles are deleted because they are unencyclopedic. Coatrack articles are unencyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. You again. Thanks for adding to the ABF. Guido den Broeder 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was assuming any sort of faith, just explaining the basis of deletion policy. Assuming bad faith would be saying something like (to take a recent example): "It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV." MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though coatrack doesn't mean it should be deleted, failing WP:CORP does. I tried looking through the sources (this version), only one seemed to be independent of the organization itself or irrelevant to notability, the 4th in the above version, and it looked like only a single paragraph - pretty trivial. Also, it was in Dutch; though sources are allowed in other languages, and it may be notable on the Dutch wiki, I can't read anything that tells me its notable. Even looking at the sources, there doesn't seem to be any that look like newspapers, news agencies, national magazines, or even any scholarly discussion of how the organization's new guidelines are good or bad, all of which would help it pass WP:CORP. Also, any page that cites the page creator's apparently unpublished (were it publishedit would be a pubmed citation) PhD thesis is extremely worrisome. Also, if the organization's guidelines, criticisms and suggestions for the treatment of ME/CFS are only covered by it's own publications, they themselves do not appear to be notable, and their content should not be covered in detail. Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation given reliable sources. If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way, it will be covered eventually - at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI. WLU 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WLU - TexasAndroid 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My main reason for viewing the current independent sources as (marginally) sufficient to establish notability is that they show that the Vereniging has already garnered substantial recognition as patient representative, and does seem to fill a niche left by the ME/CVS Stichting. But I would like to see more independent sources providing information on the Vereniging. If a consensus to delete emerges here, I'd like to echo WLU's words: "If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way, it will be covered eventually - at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI." Avb 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article does survive AFD, it should definitely be de-coated so to speak, to leave only the rack. It should also be de-puffed, as currently it is a bit too self-promoting for my tastes. Incidentally, I don't see it as having recognition as a patient representative org, but that may be because I don't read Dutch. The lack of english sources is a huge disadvantage for an english encyclopedia. WLU 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is now unbalanced, there are far too many references. Some were added only because the notability was questioned, but don't make the article better. I suggest that someone other than me does this. It is rather weak to keep talking about COI if you're not prepared to help out. Guido den Broeder 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implied criticism notwithstanding, none of us are obliged to help out. A lack of contributors is a secondary indication of low notability unfortunately. WLU 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is most definitely not a deletion criterion!!! Any more than the opposite is a reason for keep. DGG (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of particular notability, and lack of significant sources. DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was hoping the Dutch article would be more convincing, but it wasn't. If it accomplished anything significant, then it isn't in either article. jonathon 04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jonathon, the English article was the same as the Dutch article until recently; nobody on nl:Wikipedia asked for proof of notability. What, in your opinion, would be something significant - can you give an example? Regards, Guido den Broeder 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that didn't look like it was written by or for their PR department would be a start. I cant' give specifics because I still can't tell what this organization could accomplish, other than waste taxpayer money.jonathon 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't need to. What the association can accomplish is not relevant, only what it has accomplished. By the way, no taxpayer's money is involved. If you think the article is not well written: be bold and edit it. Guido den Broeder 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have moved the edits User:AvB deleted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) Fram 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Since I am pretty capable of the dutch language I am took some time to dive into the matter. It seems pretty clear to me that the ME/CVS Vereniging is notable. It is mentioned in lots of places as one of the patient organizations, delivered a often cited common declaration with the bigger organization CVS Stichting [Common declaration]. I think the article is well written, cited correctly and provides useful information with regards of the topic patient organizations around CVS. I do not see a valid reason to delete this article due to missing notability. I am astonished about the tone of this discussion. If needed I can put the effort of putting some of the links where the CVS vereniging is mentioned into the article. I was not involved into the topic of CVS/ME before this AfD. Neozoon 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I can't read dutch, but the organization appears to be mentioned only once, just before the end of the page. Also, the writing quality, and 'usefulness' are not relevant to notability. WLU 22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have overlooked the logo at the top. This is a press release issued by the three patient organizations together. Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, you are correct. But if it's a press release, it has absolutely no worth in asserting notability because it is not an independent, secondary source. WLU 12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is 2/3 independent. :-) Guido den Broeder 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a press release. WLU 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Hello WLU, thanks for your message on my discussion page. I can read dutch and I find the organization appear on all the relevant pages that deal with patient organizations and ME/CVS. I see things in a bigger context. What does Wikipedia loose when this article gets deleted? Will Wikipedia be a better place when this article about an organisation that works for raising attention to the illness of few people with little engery is deleted? The organization is mentioned in Newspaper articles, sends out press releases, has its own printed news magazin that is quoted by others. I started to edit the article and the quotations. Deleting this page just feels wrong :-) Neozoon 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.