The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Human Genome Organisation

Human Genome Organisation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Scientific organisation. No assertion of importance ( WP:A7), no sources to indicate notability ( WP:GNG). A Google Search shows that the organisation is somewhat frequently mentioned in the media, which does suggest a certain prominence (hence no speedy deletion), but I've not found any detailed third-party coverage that would support an article. Strangely, its subcommittee HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee seems to have much better sourcing. Sandstein 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• KeepThe page was viewed over 430 views in the last few month, has existed since 2007, and this page exists in Wikipedia in 20 languages with English being one of those. Their Committee page is in 10 languages as well so these pages and their contents are being well used by people. ₪Rickn Asia₪ 12:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• The article is hardly more than a stub, but orgnaisations of this sort are notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep yes this is a noteable organization in the field and well-known in the field. They have an important annual meeting and publish a journal. -- hroest 01:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep but needs a clean up. Also potentially merge HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee into this article? Amkilpatrick ( talk) 07:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and consider merging sub-topics into this one. Bearian ( talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  All of these "keep"s do not provide references to reliable sources that cover the organisation in some depth, as required by WP:N. If it is notable, and it may well be, then such sources should exist. Sandstein 16:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Here is an article about them in Genome Medicine which is part of Springer Nature. Here is an article about them announcing their journal, hosted on the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website. Here is an article in Nature Genetics talking about their direction to "establishing a common language for the human genome", training course, grants, and meetings following the completion of the human genome project. Here is their website as "the resource for approved human gene nomenclature", updated 4 March 2020, stating support from the National Human Genome Research Institute, Wellcome Trust grant, and Transforming Genetic Medicine Initiative. These links were on the first page of Google search results, part of 83k hits that come up when searching for "Human Genome Organisation". Another 2.8k hits are within Google Scholar. ₪Rickn Asia₪ 01:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per comment with references just above. It is a well known organization. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:13, 5 March 2020 (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.