Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization for Human Brain Mapping

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.  Sandstein  20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organization for Human Brain Mapping

Organization for Human Brain Mapping (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)

no evidence for notability. A previous version was copyvio, but the additional information there didn't show it either. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as although I found this and this, there's simply not much. Pinging past user TexasAndroid who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Instigated by User:DGG I have now attempted an expansion of the text. I admit it has only few good independent sources, but note that the organization is non-profit and their meeting draws up to 3000 attendees each year. — fnielsen (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is now one secondary source (to be regarded as unaffiliated because it passed peer review), which devotes a single paragraph to the topic of this article. I can't find more coverage. That's not enough to meet the notability bar, see
  WP:CORPDEPTH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

that single source is affiliated, not unaffiliated--it's published in the journal of the precursor of the organization,and Iwould be extremely surprised if the peer-reviewers weren't members also. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a few more references. Note that the article is linked from
  Karl Friston and Geraint Rees. — fnielsen (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment struck my previous !vote because the new sources made me doubt. The Nature Neuroscience editorial is especially hard to assess since on the one hand it calls the OHBM "an important forum" but on the other hand this is a prediction, rather than an assessment... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: are we looking for secondary sources which significantly describe the work of this organisation, or are we simply looking for works which cite it as a reputable and notable organisation in the field? On the latter point, I've found a number of academic books which cite it as a significant source (but don't actually talk about it specifically). Maybe that's not good enough, so I won't link to the books here. JMWt (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We're looking for secondary sources that are about the organisation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:39, 19 November 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.