Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS

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

Unreferenced article about an organisation which appears to no longer exist. Rathfelder (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - article needs major improvement. But that does not necessarily mean deletion is the answer. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing actually suggesting the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pan-American research organisation with lots of mentions in scientific literature. The article was in some serious disrepair. The era in which the network was most active may partly account for some of the problems with sourcing, I have added some. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination and thank Drchriswilliams for rescuing the article.Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 27 April 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.