Deletion of The Cambridge Working Group

Comment: I have looked at the sources, both included in the article and some mentioned above, as well as conducting a  search. I see nothing that specifically brings this group notability outside any other activist group that made for a single purpose. Some are notable and some are not. The question remains, does the specific subject, the entity, receive significant coverage, not of its ideas but of the entity itself, in multiple, not numerical but those in which a wide range of view points is discussed, reliable and independent secondary sources? Nothing in the notability guideline  states that a thousand mentions equal a significant coverage, in fact, it reflects the exact opposite. Mentions are not stackable nor do they build to notability. The entity fails notability. If there is an appropriate redirect or merge I would not be opposed to such action
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:N)

Comment: non-notable organisation failing . There's a lot of ref bombing but many of the refs don't even mention this "Cambridge Working Group
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: I think the material here is essentially interesting, but the article overall is problematic. The title of the group named is little enough used that the article risks falling foul of our rule against neologisms, quite apart from the high bar  sets that I don't think the article has a chance of clearing. I think the task that faces us is to find a better home for this material. I note the article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271556/ Moratorium on Research Intended To Create Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens by Lipsitch and Inglesby   coins the term Potential Pandemic Pathogens for the specific concern they have, to distiunguish the heightened concern they have compared to prior gain-of-function work. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potential%20Pandemic%20Pathogens&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on A GScholar search for that term does not yield many highly cited results, though: two clear the 50 gscholhits bar, one by Lipsitch and a coauthor, one with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and a coauthor. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)