478:), only one seemed to be independent of the organization itself or irrelevant to notability, the 4th in the above version, and it looked like only a single paragraph - pretty trivial. Also, it was in Dutch; though sources are allowed in other languages, and it may be notable on the Dutch wiki, I can't read anything that tells me its notable. Even looking at the sources, there doesn't seem to be any that look like newspapers, news agencies, national magazines, or even any scholarly discussion of how the organization's new guidelines are good or bad, all of which would help it pass WP:CORP. Also, any page that cites the page creator's apparently unpublished (were it publishedit would be a pubmed citation) PhD thesis is extremely worrisome. Also, if the organization's guidelines, criticisms and suggestions for the treatment of ME/CFS are only covered by it's own publications, they themselves do not appear to be notable, and their content should not be covered in detail.
510:. My main reason for viewing the current independent sources as (marginally) sufficient to establish notability is that they show that the Vereniging has already garnered substantial recognition as patient representative, and does seem to fill a niche left by the ME/CVS Stichting. But I would like to see more independent sources providing information on the Vereniging. If a consensus to delete emerges here, I'd like to echo WLU's words: "If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way,
722:
organization CVS Stichting . I think the article is well written, cited correctly and provides useful information with regards of the topic patient organizations around CVS. I do not see a valid reason to delete this article due to missing notability. I am astonished about the tone of this discussion. If needed I can put the effort of putting some of the links where the CVS vereniging is mentioned into the article. I was not involved into the topic of CVS/ME before this AfD.
551:- if the article does survive AFD, it should definitely be de-coated so to speak, to leave only the rack. It should also be de-puffed, as currently it is a bit too self-promoting for my tastes. Incidentally, I don't see it as having recognition as a patient representative org, but that may be because I don't read Dutch. The lack of english sources is a huge disadvantage for an english encyclopedia.
791:
better place when this article about an organisation that works for raising attention to the illness of few people with little engery is deleted? The organization is mentioned in
Newspaper articles, sends out press releases, has its own printed news magazin that is quoted by others. I started to edit the article and the quotations. Deleting this page just feels wrong :-)
407:'. It was speedily deleted somewhat hastily and put back on my request. Subsequently, several users have worked together to establish notability. It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV, and I request to deal with him accordingly. PS: I am not on the board of the Vereniging.
188:. The Vereniging has not been shown to be the subject of much attention by the media, and has mainly been mentioned in passing or by sending in a letter. Being heard in a few government decisions is not an indication of notability for Knowledge, as far as I am concerned. The blatant COI is of course negative, but not in itself a reason for deletion.
390:. The article is now well-sourced and I wouldn't know what more needs to be added to the press attention, recognition by government, key institutions and scientists, memberships, publications, accomplishments, etc., before notability is accepted. Keep in mind that notability is always relative. This is not a football club, so
249:
Looking a bit further, it appears that the
Vereniging was part of an invitational conference by ZonMw on March 20, 2007, and in general ZonMw notes that the patient organisations are involved in the development of the guideline. So this may indicate that your fourth point at least is correct. In my
239:
is a member of the CG-Raad, the
Vereniging isn't. But they have heard the Vereniging when developing a protocol. I have not found the evidence that the Vereniging is any more involved with ZonMw either. So point 1 is gone, point 2 is based on that letter you get printed as a reply to an article they
790:
Hello WLU, thanks for your message on my discussion page. I can read dutch and I find the organization appear on all the relevant pages that deal with patient organizations and ME/CVS. I see things in a bigger context. What does
Knowledge loose when this article gets deleted? Will Knowledge be a
560:
Agreed. The article is now unbalanced, there are far too many references. Some were added only because the notability was questioned, but don't make the article better. I suggest that someone other than me does this. It is rather weak to keep talking about COI if you're not prepared to help out.
721:
Since I am pretty capable of the dutch language I am took some time to dive into the matter. It seems pretty clear to me that the ME/CVS Vereniging is notable. It is mentioned in lots of places as one of the patient organizations, delivered a often cited common declaration with the bigger
354:
So nothing new there. These are the organisations that afterwards complained that they were only heard instead of really "developing common policy", just like I said from the beginning. I don' think I'll comment here again, unless something really
402:
by JFW. The article has nothing to do with any ongoing discussion elsewhere and existed long before that. I did not recreate it, as JFW claims on my discussion page; that is a blatant lie. Nor has there been a 'warning in the past on
646:
Hi
Jonathon, the English article was the same as the Dutch article until recently; nobody on nl:Knowledge asked for proof of notability. What, in your opinion, would be something significant - can you give an example? Regards,
662:
Something that didn't look like it was written by or for their PR department would be a start. I cant' give specifics because I still can't tell what this organization could accomplish, other than waste taxpayer
240:
ran, point 3 is your opinion, and for point 4, all I have found is that they are being heard. In my opinion, the sources in the article don't support the claim that this is a notable group.
736:- I can't read dutch, but the organization appears to be mentioned only once, just before the end of the page. Also, the writing quality, and 'usefulness' are not relevant to notability.
445:
I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was assuming any sort of faith, just explaining the basis of deletion policy. Assuming bad faith would be saying something like (to take a recent example):
704:
117:
288:
You have missed the main point, that the
Vereniging is part of a select group of patient organizations for various disorders that develops common policy on guidelines.
528:
157:
on a much larger issue, namely the exact cause and management of CFS. That issue is already spelled out clearly in the CFS article. For these reasons, I propose
754:
Oops, you are correct. But if it's a press release, it has absolutely no worth in asserting notability because it is not an independent, secondary source.
582:
Implied criticism notwithstanding, none of us are obliged to help out. A lack of contributors is a secondary indication of low notability unfortunately.
197:
Fram, why do you consider national organizatons like CG-Raad, NPCF, ZonMw unreliable? The claim of notability is based on, in addition to media coverage:
332:, it doesn't mention the Vereniging, and it is this one where the Vereniging complained about only being heard afterwards. If you mean somethign else,
637:
I was hoping the Dutch article would be more convincing, but it wasn't. If it accomplished anything significant, then it isn't in either article.
297:
And where on the 3B Platform pages does it say that? It would be very helpful if you provide a link, instead of setting me on a wild goose chase.
143:
90:
85:
94:
77:
745:
You may have overlooked the logo at the top. This is a press release issued by the three patient organizations together. Regards,
482:, with no prejudice against re-creation given reliable sources. If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way,
447:"It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV."
17:
394:
may not have heard of it, but patients, media, scientists, clinicians, government and institutions in The
Netherlands have.
137:
416:
Note further that the provided reason for deletion (coatrack) is neither specified nor a valid reason for deletion.
814:
36:
235:
NPCF is a directory. It shows that ME/CSV is considered genuine, not necessarily that it is notable. The ME/CVS
813:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
797:
778:
767:
758:
749:
740:
728:
711:
688:
667:
651:
641:
629:
606:
586:
565:
555:
538:
518:
502:
490:
454:
440:
431:
420:
411:
372:
363:
349:
340:
310:
301:
292:
283:
263:
254:
244:
222:
192:
171:
125:
59:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
81:
147:
764:
746:
685:
648:
562:
437:
417:
408:
395:
369:
346:
307:
289:
260:
219:
133:
73:
65:
514:- at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI."
486:- at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI.
595:
that is most definitely not a deletion criterion!!! Any more than the opposite is a reason for keep.
535:
218:
Of course this is potentially biased, but a denial of notability should at least address the claim.
664:
638:
166:
154:
499:
206:
The fact that the
Vereniging is innovative and a leader in the field of patient organizations;
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
368:
No, these are the organizations that participate in the
Platform to develop a common policy.
425:
Articles are deleted because they are unencyclopedic. Coatrack articles are unencyclopedic.
330:
277:
129:
471:
250:
opinion this isn't sufficient as a claim to notability, but other people may disagree.
213:
in the development of the Dutch multidiscilinary guideline (rather than 'being heard').
54:
625:
602:
515:
450:
427:
404:
162:
150:
792:
723:
181:
111:
684:
is involved. If you think the article is not well written: be bold and edit it.
398:
10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I consider the suggestive comments above a leap of
185:
708:
360:
337:
298:
280:
276:, and complained about that in a letter (see "commentaar op concept..." here
251:
241:
189:
49:
273:
200:
The fact that major national organizations consider the
Vereniging notable;
775:
755:
737:
700:
620:
618:
no indication of particular notability, and lack of significant sources.
597:
583:
552:
487:
272:
done that before. This is the one where the Vereniging was only heard
345:
Please. Right below is the list of the participating organizations.
203:
The fact that a scientific journal considers the Vereniging notable;
807:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
470:- though coatrack doesn't mean it should be deleted, failing
259:
You might also want to follow the link to the 3B Platform.
475:
107:
103:
99:
705:
Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging
279:). Or was there anything else you wanted to point to?
359:
appears. Repeating old arguments is a waste of time.
184:, and those are to me not enough to establish real
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
672:Well, you shouldn't need to. What the association
306:Right at the top, where it says 'het project' ...
329:(deindent)If you mean the first link on this page
817:). No further edits should be made to this page.
436:Ah. You again. Thanks for adding to the ABF.
8:
474:does. I tried looking through the sources (
180:. Lots of sources, but very few of them are
676:accomplish is not relevant, only what it
527:: This debate has been included in the
153:. No mention of membership, largely a
146:), who is on the organisation's board
7:
149:and has been warned in the past on
529:list of Medicine-related deletions
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
680:accomplished. By the way, no
512:it will be covered eventually
484:it will be covered eventually
132:. Article largely written by
798:01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
779:17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
768:12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
759:12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
750:10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
741:22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
729:22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
712:09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
689:10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
668:04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
652:14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
642:04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
630:22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
607:01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
587:22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
566:19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
556:17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
539:15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
519:14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
503:14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
491:14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
455:03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
441:22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
432:17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
421:10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
412:08:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
373:19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
364:12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
350:12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
341:12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
311:11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
302:11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
293:11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
284:11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
264:11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
255:11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
245:10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
223:09:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
193:08:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
182:reliable independent sources
172:07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
60:10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
763:It is 2/3 independent. :-)
268:As you might now by now, I
834:
810:Please do not modify it.
699:(I have moved the edits
126:chronic fatigue syndrome
32:Please do not modify it.
774:It's a press release.
161:elete of this article.
209:The fact that it is a
124:Patients' group for
765:Guido den Broeder
747:Guido den Broeder
714:
686:Guido den Broeder
649:Guido den Broeder
563:Guido den Broeder
541:
532:
438:Guido den Broeder
418:Guido den Broeder
409:Guido den Broeder
396:Guido den Broeder
370:Guido den Broeder
347:Guido den Broeder
308:Guido den Broeder
290:Guido den Broeder
261:Guido den Broeder
220:Guido den Broeder
169:
134:Guido den Broeder
74:ME/CVS Vereniging
66:ME/CVS Vereniging
825:
812:
698:
682:taxpayer's money
533:
523:
167:
115:
97:
57:
52:
34:
833:
832:
828:
827:
826:
824:
823:
822:
821:
815:deletion review
808:
536:Espresso Addict
130:the Netherlands
88:
72:
69:
55:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
831:
829:
820:
819:
803:
802:
801:
800:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
772:
771:
770:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
657:
656:
655:
654:
632:
612:
611:
610:
609:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
543:
542:
521:
505:
493:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
228:
227:
226:
225:
216:
215:
214:
207:
204:
201:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
830:
818:
816:
811:
805:
804:
799:
796:
795:
789:
786:
780:
777:
773:
769:
766:
762:
761:
760:
757:
753:
752:
751:
748:
744:
743:
742:
739:
735:
732:
731:
730:
727:
726:
720:
717:
716:
715:
713:
710:
706:
702:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
653:
650:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
633:
631:
627:
623:
622:
617:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
599:
594:
588:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
567:
564:
559:
558:
557:
554:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
537:
530:
526:
522:
520:
517:
513:
509:
506:
504:
501:
498:as per WLU -
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
456:
453:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
439:
435:
434:
433:
430:
429:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
374:
371:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
328:
312:
309:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
286:
285:
282:
278:
275:
271:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
257:
256:
253:
248:
247:
246:
243:
238:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
224:
221:
217:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
198:
196:
195:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
809:
806:
793:
787:
733:
724:
718:
697:
681:
677:
673:
634:
619:
615:
596:
548:
524:
511:
507:
500:TexasAndroid
495:
483:
479:
476:this version
467:
449:
446:
426:
399:
391:
387:
356:
333:
269:
236:
210:
177:
158:
140:
128:patients in
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
719:Strong Keep
703:deleted to
635:Weak Delete
274:see page 93
211:participant
155:WP:COATRACK
334:link to it
186:notability
508:Weak keep
400:bad faith
237:Stichting
701:User:AvB
665:jonathon
639:jonathon
451:MastCell
428:MastCell
144:contribs
118:View log
794:Neozoon
788:comment
734:comment
725:Neozoon
549:Comment
472:WP:CORP
91:protect
86:history
663:money.
616:Delete
496:Delete
480:Delete
468:Delete
405:WP:COI
178:Delete
151:WP:COI
95:delete
46:delete
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
709:Fram
626:talk
603:talk
525:Note
388:Keep
361:Fram
338:Fram
299:Fram
281:Fram
270:have
252:Fram
242:Fram
190:Fram
168:T@lk
138:talk
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
51:Neil
776:WLU
756:WLU
738:WLU
678:has
674:can
621:DGG
598:DGG
584:WLU
553:WLU
531:.
516:Avb
488:WLU
392:you
357:new
163:JFW
116:– (
707:)
628:)
605:)
336:.
165:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
48:.
624:(
601:(
534:—
159:d
141:·
136:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
56:☎
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.