Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcolepsy Network

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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narcolepsy Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NO RS establishing this as meeting general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepAs pointed out there is RS on Google scholar. I also checked web of science and there was 8 RS journals on there referring to this database. I've added some extra references and content. Changed my vote to keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am finding lot's of Google News results on "Narcolepsy Network," mostly they seem to be passing mentions, but there may be enough to justify a keep.This needs more research or improvement from the author. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Greene, Gayle (2008). Insomniac. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24630-0. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

     The book notes on page 104:

     The book notes on page 356:
  2. Coburn, Susan (2001-10-01). "Outlet for Narcolepsy". Stamford Advocate.

     The article notes:

  3. "Narcolepsy Network". Medicine on the Net. Vol. 19, no. 6. June 2013. pp. 10–11. ISSN 1085-3502.

     The abstract notes: "The article reviews the Web site of the nonprofit patient support group Narcolepsy Network, located www.narcolepsynetwork.org."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Narcolepsy Network to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Scholar search comes up with several citations in academic journals - just one example being Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine. Together with the research provided by Cunard above, RS and notability seem to be no issue.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm willing to withdraw this AfD per notability being shown if Deathlibrarian agrees. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks SL93 - I found some more references - I've actually added some of them to the article and added some more details, as it was a bit scant. I just checked the Web Of Science Databases, and it gets 8 hits there, including a specific article discussing it, which I will add to the article. (The European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) database By: Khatami, Ramin; Luca, Gianina; Baumann, Christian R.; et al. Group Author(s): European Narcolepsy Network JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH Volume: ‏ 25 Issue: ‏ 3 Pages: ‏ 356-364 Published: ‏ JUN 2016). There's also plenty of hits in Google scholar. So yes, happy for you to withdraw the nomination. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw SL93 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2020 (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.