535:
references. It is not our job to add these references to the article. That's why they are brought up here and not on the article talk page or added to the article directly. I myself simply have little/no interest in the subject and subsequently have little/no expertise in it. References have not
234:
The aim of the project: to develop an instrument to measure quality of life in people with intellectual and physical disabilities. The name of the new measure - WHOQOL-DIS. Project is supported by World Health
Organization (WHO). New attitudes to disabilities (ADS) questionnaire will be developed as
383:
Even though these are only four sources, they are academic journals, which weigh more heavily than casual books, newspapers, or magazines, which are routinely used to support notability. Based on these sources, I'd lean towards Keep. As DGG says above: work is needed to improve the article, but
282:
Writing of this sort does not mean the subject is not caqpable of supporting an article, not even that the existing text could not be rapidly rewritten, just as any other form of sub-standard
English. I don't think it's reasonable to use that alone for judging an article. The question is, is there
265:. It is a bit disturbing to find that this may be a systematic use of English Knowledge (XXG) as a project index repository. Perhaps the University of Leipzig brigade might be asked to change tack? ("Ask what you can do for Knowledge (XXG), not what Knowledge (XXG) can do for you")
350:- I see 19 hits in Google Scholar, including four articles directly on the topic of WHOQOL-DIS, and several others that reference those primary articles. On the other hand, the coverage in Google-Web is pretty thin. This is borderline notability. The key sources include:
489:
The article is 2 years old and yet has ZERO real references. No in-line citations, and the "references" section is just "for further reading" stuff, at least 4 of the 5 refer to their own materials. But it's a stub on a project that probably could meet wp:notability.
472:(but weak) I agree with Noleander above and found the same references. While they are few/weak enough to make this a "gray" area of sorts, it is enough to keep. Or at the least enough for MO to believe that more and better sources will emerge with a bit o' time. tyvm
540:
in 2 years. That is not to say they have not been seen/found. It's just a matter of someone coming along who cares enough about the article to incorporate them. Of course we can always discuss the few sources found too. It's no problemo! tyvm
154:
262:
115:
206:
148:
510:
I have to say that your arguments more sound like "delete" than "keep", even if only weakly. No references have come forward in 2 years, why would they come now? --
258:
241:
dedicated to the insertion of articles about these projects without any guidance as to which, if any, are actual encyclopedia subjects. -
17:
403:
568:, the sourcing is not just weak, it doesn't sustain notability, only establishes this is not a hoax. Also, europrojectcruft.--
360:
Using the WHOQOL-DIS to
Measure Quality of Life in Persons with Physical Disabilities Caused by Neurodegenerative Disorders -
88:
83:
92:
169:
592:
136:
36:
75:
591:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
330:. No evidence this research project has been the subject of coverage that would meet the requirements of the
546:
477:
130:
232:. Yet another EU research project and article written in grant-application language rather than English:
238:
126:
577:
550:
519:
501:
481:
460:
419:
393:
342:
318:
294:
274:
249:
221:
198:
57:
217:
79:
497:
389:
162:
53:
435:
365:
Specific
Quality of Life Assessment Instrument for People with Disabilities: The WHOQOLâDIS Module
304:
176:
573:
542:
473:
71:
63:
453:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
407:
515:
415:
375:
The response scale for the intellectual disability module of the WHOQOL: 5âpoint or 3âpoint?
246:
194:
565:
331:
237:
No sources to show that anything they have developed has been adopted by anyone. There is
186:
336:
315:
270:
213:
142:
385:
49:
569:
290:
446:
109:
511:
411:
283:
any actual substance there? I'm not really inclined to investigate in detail.
242:
190:
266:
438:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
307:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
235:
well based on unique WHO methodology of simultaneous intercultural approach.
285:
406:. I don't think these sources establish notability, per analogy with
384:
based on these four sources, there is plenty of material to do so. --
585:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:
Framework
Programmes for Research and Technological Development
185:
Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet
105:
101:
97:
161:
445:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
314:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
257:
I commented earlier against one of these projects (
175:
261:) that they might be rolled-up into a list under
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
595:). No further edits should be made to this page.
370:Development of the WHOQOL disabilities module
207:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
205:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/ISTAG
204:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
531:Actually we have just said we found
247:killing the human spirit since 2003!
24:
402:Perhaps you could have a look at
1:
578:00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
551:20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
520:11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
502:17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
482:04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
461:03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
420:12:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
58:18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
612:
394:02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
343:01:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
319:01:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
295:04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
275:21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
250:15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
222:12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
199:10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
588:Please do not modify it.
404:my -immature- notes here
32:Please do not modify it.
239:an offsite project
44:The result was
463:
321:
224:
210:
603:
590:
495:
450:
444:
440:
341:
313:
309:
211:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
602:
601:
600:
599:
593:deletion review
586:
491:
457:
448:
433:
335:
302:
243:Smerdis of Tlön
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
609:
607:
598:
597:
581:
580:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
523:
522:
505:
504:
484:
466:
465:
464:
455:
442:
441:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
372:
367:
362:
352:
351:
345:
324:
323:
322:
311:
310:
299:
298:
297:
277:
252:
226:
225:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
608:
596:
594:
589:
583:
582:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
559:
552:
548:
544:
543:Pudge MclameO
539:
534:
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
494:
488:
485:
483:
479:
475:
474:Pudge MclameO
471:
468:
467:
462:
459:
458:
452:
451:
443:
439:
437:
432:
431:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
382:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
361:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
339:
333:
329:
326:
325:
320:
317:
312:
308:
306:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
281:
278:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
253:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
208:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
587:
584:
561:
537:
532:
528:
492:
486:
469:
454:
447:
434:
374:
369:
364:
359:
347:
337:
327:
303:
284:
279:
254:
233:
229:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
149:free images
449:Wifione
338:Satori Son
316:Courcelles
214:Tom Morris
72:WHOQOL-DIS
64:WHOQOL-DIS
493:North8000
487:Weak Keep
386:Noleander
348:Weak Keep
50:causa sui
570:Cerejota
436:Relisted
305:Relisted
116:View log
456:.......
408:WP:PROF
280:Comment
255:Comment
155:WPÂ refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
566:WP:GNG
564:fails
562:Delete
512:Crusio
412:Crusio
332:WP:GNG
328:Delete
230:Delete
191:Crusio
187:WP:GNG
127:Google
93:delete
538:added
536:been
291:talk
267:AllyD
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
574:talk
547:talk
533:some
516:talk
498:talk
478:talk
470:Keep
416:talk
410:. --
390:talk
334:. â
271:talk
218:talk
195:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
286:DGG
177:TWL
114:â (
576:)
549:)
529:re
518:)
500:)
480:)
418:)
392:)
293:)
273:)
245:-
220:)
209:.
197:)
189:.
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
572:(
545:(
514:(
496:(
476:(
414:(
388:(
289:(
269:(
216:(
212:â
193:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.