Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Comprehensive Cancer 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. — TKD::Talk 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Blatent advertisement. Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the majority of edits to the page are by 63.86.251.252, which is registered to National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the services a 3rd party "Network" offers. Nor is Wikipedia a place for Self-promotion or Advertising. Hu12 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.nccn.org
→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_15#National_Comprehensive_Cancer_Network

Delete - Reads very much like an advertisement for this organisation. No references for content to establish notability either - so fails WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few sources before now in a search (I do look actually); I suggested delete as an advert leaving potential for a possible re-wright in future. If the article is been actively cleaned-up now, I will say keep it. Camaron1 | Chris 11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising leaflet published on Wikipedia... not worth it here. is this notable enough?? no, don't think so! --84.45.219.185 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam-like article that fails WP:N change to Keep per the work of DGG. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found Corpx 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable--look at the participants--this was reduced from a very spammy set of article, and is little more than a straight forward encyclopedic description. Anyway, I found easily enough a formal review in a peer-reviewed journal that describes it and I added it to the article. Take a look--I think that satisfies the request for sourcing for notability. did anyone else even look? DGG (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I spotted the journal when I made my !vote. But one RS is not a sufficient assertion of notability as defined by the necessary "significant coverage." VanTucky ^(talk) 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first of all one RS is sufficient, if it is strong enough--and a 2-page review in the leading peer-reviewed journal in the subject is certainly strong enough. anyway, I added two more. I could keep going. (I also cleaned up the content a little, removing the misguided attempts of their PR person to make it look impressive.DGG (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems it's notable then. Would you like to volunteer to completely re-write the article according to those sources and remove any promotional content? Because it certainly needs it. Otherwise, it's just an advert with useless sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing just that. DGG (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It appears their practice guidelines are widely used (or at least commented upon). -- SiobhanHansa 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Tikiwont 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, I agree. The clinical practice guidelines are well known in oncology practice for being unbiased and the state-of-the-art in cancer because of the association of hospitals that belongs to the group. The guidelines are very widely cited in peer-reviewed journals in oncology (do a pubmed search on this). The wording at the top seems to come directly from their own web page, though, so it does need significant cleaning up. No reason to delete this when other similar organizations in cancer (ASCO, Lance Armstrong Foundation, American Cancer Society) all have pages. This organization is well known among all cancer docs even if it is not as public as ACS. --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, I took a shot at cleaning it up. What does everyone think? --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think there is an oncology journal that they publish, but someone else would have to look this up because I don't know about it. --Queen_of_the_Jet_Set 16:58, 17 August 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.