Cure Alzheimer's Fund: I'm not seeing coverage that isn't PR-Newswire posts or first party.  The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 09:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations ,  and Massachusetts .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete : I did find this article: [18] , but it's mostly an interview, and this: [19] , which is likely an editorialized press release.   All other sources I found were either clearly PR, routine database or tax listings, or not independent of the foundation.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a notable charity in the fight against Alzheimer.  La coince ( talk ) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] La coince , notability is demonstrated through coverage in reliable sources, which you have not demonstrated exist.  I'm also super curious how you found this, considering that you haven't edited this project in half a year before reaching this nomination.  By any chance, are you also user:CureAlzUser , since you added back the same content that I've removed as being out of scope and overly promotional?  The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Squirrel Conspiracy I am not user:CureAlzUser , but feel free to have this checked.  Let me also add that common courtesy would have required you to mention contributors of this page about the deletion process.  La coince ( talk ) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it fails to adhere to Wikipedia's core content policies.  Firstly, the article appears to be written in a promotional tone, highlighting the organization's achievements and funding efficiency without a balanced representation of independent, critical analysis, which goes against the Neutral Point of View policy.  Secondly, the article lacks citations from reliable, third-party sources.  Lastly, the notability of the organization is not well established through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 13:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's a decent amount of coverage as they seem to be involved in some significant research, but not much of it is in-depth.  A lot of it has to do with the Alzheimer’s Genome Project , which they provide funding for (this might be a notable project that would warrant a Wikipedia article).  The nonprofit is described as " aimed at accelerating research to bring about a cure for the disease " and The New York Times notes that they are "one of several foundations whose approach departs from the standard model employed by the National Institutes of Health and major medical foundations. These groups are intensely goal-directed and collaborative; they see the creation of new cures as a process that needs to be managed; and they bring a sense of urgency to the task".  Mooonswimmer 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is some minor interest via Google Trends.  -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk ) I don't see anything about Google Trends in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline .  The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 02:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to Alzheimer's Genome Project , and trim down to focus on the project.  While the fund likely fails WP:NCORP, the research project seems to meet academic notability criteria.  Owen× ☎ 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For consideration of the late proposal to rename and re-scope the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The fund doesn't seem to be independently notable.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete