Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outcomes Research Consortium

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes Research Consortium

This has been tagged since May 2008 and seems to have been abandoned - although neither of those situations are reasons for deletion, I bring the article here to determine notability. It appears to have been previously speedied User_talk:Nakon/arc1#Deletion_of_Outcomes_Research_Consortium —G716 <^T·_C> 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a bunch of entities out there with the phrase "Outcomes Research Consortium" in them (see here). This does read like an ad, but there may be potential here. I don't know what to do with this statement, though: "research by members of Outcomes Research Consortium, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association,showed that if surgical patients were kept warm [3][4] or received supplemental oxygen, [5][6] then the risk of post-surgical infection was markedly reduced". Do we attribute notability to organizations the members of which have public artcles in notable journals? That seems to be the only material notability hook here. There do not appear to be any news hits concerning this particular ORC and its director. J L G 4 1 0 4 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete' - the issue is WP:NOR, not spam per se. Can this be fixed? Bearian (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY and discussion below. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable group, though the article is too spammy to show it clearly. The membership is based on the Cleveland Clinic and UCSF, and their publications are of great importance. The point of this is that they are a distinctive unit organising definitive analyses of surgical procedures, in the movement towards evidence-based medicine. It was nominated for lack of notability, but I think it's shown by the references to its work, though only a single one of the hundreds is explicitly cited. I see no problems with POV, actually, but surely we don't delete for such problems, but revise the article as needed. I did a thorough clean-up; the next step is additional 3rd party sources. Along with discussing afds enough to keep them in the first place, i can rewrite about 2 articles like this a week; if the afds were reduced, I could do proportionately more. DGG (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They do not splash the evening news, but are sufficiently notable in the field. I fixed the references and toned down the advertising some. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (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.