HIV Prevention Trials Network: According to XTools, Emillerfhi360 ( talk · contribs ) has 85% article ownership, an account with no edits outside the article over a five year period, who has potential undisclosed COI, and was cautioned on the article's talk page.  Not to justify the AfD, but this has a huge amount of in-body external links and overlinking , I am surprised it was not picked up by an automated tool.  Searching for independent sources turned up: - [21] , non signficant coverage - [22] , not independent, as Eric Miller is the HPTN press contact ( [23] ) There are plenty of sources which cite HPTN studies, eg.  [24] , but I cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage.  Courtesy ping: @ Emillerfhi360 Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations ,  and Medicine .  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure This organization has probably spent about US$1 billion on its programs.  In the field of medical research orgs often avoid the media.  I am not sure that this org meets WP:N .  Much of the coverage mentioning this org is about its research and programs.  I am sure that most of the content here is promotional and if this article is to be kept, then it would benefit from  1) having all promotional or self-published citations deleted then  2) deleting all content without citations.  I think the text remaining may be 3-5 sentences.  If there is appetite for deleting content, then I support that.  I suspect that we could find at least a couple of sources covering the org based on how much money it consumed over decades.  Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  HIV Prevention Trials Network has made robust contributions to the field of HIV prevention.  Since its establishment it has conducted over 78 trials, enrolling more than 172,000 study participants, and published over 800 papers.  I think the topic is notable.  Rodgers V ( talk ) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : their studies are often cited in top peer-reviewed aggregators such as Nature and The Lancet , as well in secondary sources.  Owen× ☎ 15:05, 17 December 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!  08:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above, there is scientific documentation intertwined with the organization.  Svartner ( talk ) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seeing the keep comments, I would like to mention the essay section WP:SOURCESEXIST .  It does not matter how many studies the org publishes, there need to be at least two sources meeting WP:GNG and ideally WP:NORG about the organisation itself - specifically, they need to cover the organisation with significant coverage.  Unless we are inclined to invoke WP:IAR here, of course.  Also, quoting the guideline WP:ORGSIG : "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."  Note the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbicide Trials Network , the reasoning for nomination I used there is similar.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 10:14, 27 December 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: no consensus