Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Development Services Agency (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Development Services Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable, and worded promotionally. Routine government agency DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No credible rationale provided for deletion. What is a "routine" government agency? AusLondonder (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @AusLondonder: I think it would be helpful to focus on the key element in the nomination's rationale - the apparent lack of sources that would be needed for notability. I see that you have a general interest in this domain, so I wonder if that familiarity would enable you to track down some appropriate second-party quality sources ? - For example, what has been discussed in the press or in trade journals? Has the agency been seen favorably, or has its existence gone unmentioned? Have any of its various reports elicited commentary? --- etc. I haven't come up with much on a first look. (The lesser issue of what is a "routine" government agency might I imagine be one that is fifth tier in the hierarchy, that is extramural but advertises salaried positions, and that does things like "support research to generate evidence for development of practical and scalable regimens to medically rehabilitate children suffering from Severe (sic) Acute Malnutrition (SAM) without serious complications (sic) at home/community level and/or at peripheral inpatient facilities". This wording may not strike you as odd, perhaps even bizarre, but it does strike me that way.) Are you able to help with notability? If not, I may be inclined to a Merge with Department of Biotechnology, as well suggesting that Translational Health Science and Technology Institute should be merged there as well.FeatherPluma (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted above, the CDSA is an agency of THSTI which itself appears not to be notable. The only mentions of the CDSA that I can see are on job advert sites and brief mentions of Indian government sites. The CDSA site doesn't really talk about things it has done but rather sets out some intentions and aims. The organisation has been in existence for seven years but I can't find anything to indicate that it has achieved anything of note over this time. With the promotional wording removed there isn't much left to suggest notability and the lack of reliable coverage is a real problem. It doesn't have WP:ORGDEPTH and doesn't pass WP:NONPROFIT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now as this is simply questionable for solid notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 24 March 2016 (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.