Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Foundation for Urology

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Foundation for Urology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable non-profit organization. No independent sources. The first reference is the organization's own, and the second and third are passing mentions. The article consists only of what the organization says about itself, and not what others say about it.

Naïve Google search shows that the organization exists, and is in Heidelberg. We knew that.

Submitted to AFC and declined, but then moved into article space without further review. (This is permitted, but raises questions.) Submitting account appears to have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not currently demonstrate that it can pass notability guidelines and a search (per nom) does not reveal much if any, additional coverage. FWIW the creator exhibited similar behaviour in respect of another article (Markus Hohenfellner 'founder' of this organisation) which was also moved to mainspace without issues being addressed (subsequently improved; but later returned to draft again). As nom observes, there may be COI issues here but questions raised re this, PAID and username at their TP have seemingly not been responded to. Eagleash (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not begin to meet WP:NCORP. Two of the three references did not mention this organisation at all, so I've removed them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:50, 13 November 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.