Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging
though coatrack doesn't mean it should be deleted, failing  does.  I tried looking through the sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ME/CVS_Vereniging&oldid=166595496 this version), 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 .  Also, any page that cites the page creator's apparently unpublished (were it publishedit would be a pubmed citation) PhD thesis is extremely worrisome.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.  '''Delete''', with no prejudice against re-creation given reliable sources.  If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way, ''it will be covered eventually'' - at that point, it should be re-created.  In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI
— User:WLU, 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Notability)