Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBC Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Primary biliary cirrhosis.  Sandstein  20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PBC Foundation (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)

The organization's claim to notability is that they promoted the term primary biliary cholangitis as a replacement for the more common name primary biliary cirrhosis. Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this foundation. A search results mostly in press releases, brief mentions, articles about primary biliary cirrhosis/primary biliary cholangitis, and quotes by people related to the foundation. Sadly, I couldn't find much about the foundation itself. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope other editors will visit this page and add more to it to improve the entry rather than deleting it. This UK-based patient-support charity is the main group for a disease affecting up to 1:1000 women. It seems similar to many of the other 210 entries in the Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom such the British Heart Foundation, Coeliac UK, Diabetes UK, or Tourettes Action.Jrfw51 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 refered to the essay "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause"; no, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world, it is here to tell just the people who want to read the article Primary biliary cirrhosis , who might be interested, who might find it a significant organization, and to whom it might be a matter of life or death. GangofOne (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The aricle Primary biliary cirrhosis was not tagged for deletion, and there's no reason why they can't read about the organization there or on the PBC Foundation's website. МандичкаYO 😜 09:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The PBC Foundation advises patients, supports fundamental research and campaigns for greater recognition. The name change initiative is only the latest campaign. There are multiple references in major international research publications (Nature Genetics) and in the UK National media (BBC, Scotsman) which are cited. It easily meets the criteria for WP:notability_(organizations_and_companies).
Searches for the new name of PBC will not find the new name in the published press -- as it is new! Please read Primary biliary cholangitis references [5], [6] and [45] to get the information necessary and repeat the search again in 3 months. I will improve the entry some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfw51 (talkcontribs) 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrfw51: Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because Wikipedia has articles for many charities doesn't necessarily mean this one should have an article as well. Each article must stand on its own merits (meaning, they should pass our notability guidelines). Perhaps those other charities pass our notability guidelines (maybe they have been covered in reliable sources). But from the looks of things, this one doesn't make the cut. Which is a shame since charities do a lot of great things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the Scholar links? Jrfw51 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (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.