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. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Disease Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have no doubt this is a very worthy cause. However, what this seems to be is an observance, such as it is, which is sponsored by an organization and its affiliates, and the sources provided are the press releases of that organization. I see no indication that this has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. I have every sympathy for those struck by disease, rare or otherwise, but this article does not satisfy WP:NWehwalt (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am the article creator so I won't !vote "keep,"(ah, what the heck, I'll do it anyway) but here is a more-or-less copy of my remarks at the DYK discussion of this article: Personally, I figured the number of references in Rare Disease Day (I guess around 6 so far if you don't count the ones that are from NORD's and RDR's own websites), the google test, and the number of states and countries where events are being organized, would be enough to establish notability. Maybe later tonight I can try to go through and find the various state/national governments' "proclamations" to see if any of them can add notability. Also, "I haven't heard of it" or "it's not relevant to me" don't necessarily mean something is non-notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That a state governor issues a proclamation, makes it notable? In between the local little league team and the some guy retiring. I am not sure what your comment about "I haven't heard of it" or "it's not relevant to me" has to do with it. Do you know that it is not relevant to me? I refer you to my comment at DYK. We have standards here. I've been helpful to you by suggesting more appropriate language for the hook, but I also think the community needs to weigh in on whether this meets notability guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said at DYK, I wasn't intending to say that it's not relevant to you particularly, only that it should be judged regardless of whether it's relevant to any of us in general; likewise, "I haven't heard of it" wasn't meant to be putting words in your mouth, but just to say Notability shouldn't care about how many people have heard of it (from your own comment that you gave a diff for above: "I'm reasonably certain 99.9 out of 100 people won't have heard of it").

  Also, to address your concerns about the reliability of the sources...I'm n ot 100% sure, but I think [1], [2], and [3] (all of which are cited in the article) are unaffiliated with Rare Disease Day (ie, those sources aren't from NORD, Eurordis, or PR Newswire). Yeah, they're still medical sites and medical news aggregators...but this is a medical topic, so that's probably the only place you're going to hear about them. I think not appearing in NYT should probably be excusable here. But I'll see what the other people at this AfD have to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of them are reprints of the press release. The Novartis one I don't think qualifies as a RS. I accept your explanation and that nothing was intended by it. That's fine. I have not said that the fact that few people will have heard of it is a reason for deletion, God knows with 3M articles here, there's lots of obscure stuff. I don't think reprinting the NORD press release with a few comments, as Novartis seems to have done, would qualify even if it were a RS. Can you cite any newspaper coverage from last year, from Europe? Doesn't have to be in English, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion, thanks. I don't have a lot of time now, but I just did a quick search in French and found a couple things from what appear to be smaller medical/health associations. I'll have to do some more snooping around later to see if I can find "mainstream" newspaper hits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added some more references, including a journal article (Archives of Disease in Childhood) and some coverage from OrphaNews (the newsletter of a medical organization, but not affiliated with Eurodris, the organization that sponsored Rare Disease Day); I will try to add some more later, too. Anyone else !voting here, please take that into account. Also, if some of the original refs in the article are redundant with one another, I (or anyone) can take time sometime to clean up the old references. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. The page seems to be an unnecessary split from National Organization for Rare Disorders. No real notable coverage. Mostly primary sources and sketchy news links. Most of the references are redundant, which makes it seem like it has more coverage than it actually does. Most of the sources are actually from the same press release. Sources that are probably not reliable or count towards notability: 1, 2, 3, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even with the redundancy, the sources are adequate for notability. But merge is also a possibility, if the content is preserved, DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what it would be merged to, since National Organization for Rare Disorders is not the only organization this is associated with (it just happens to be the one coordinating it this year; in 2008 it had nothing to do with this, and for all we know in the future it won't either); I suppose merging to Rare disease is technically possible, but you guys can decide whether that would actually be an improvement. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point, it's obviously not just associated with NORD so there's little if any point merging it there. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume you know that it is possible to merge content into multiple pages, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Medical News Today" reliable? The rest look fairly questionable, but that one looks okay to me. weak keep for now. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep based on new sources. Not the best, but large (very large) number of poor sources (mostly PR reprints and minor/passing mentions in important places) plus one or two good sources (including Medical News Today which looks to not be a press release AFAICT) puts it well above the bar. Do I think that "millions" will be doing anything with the day? No. But that's not required. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What concerned me about that is that is just a reproduction of a press release.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is. The press release that's getting thrown around a lot is the 2009 "Millions around the world to observe Rare Disease Day", whereas the "Medical News Today" thing is from 2008, and the only corresponding "press release" from 2008 in there is (as far as I can tell) this...of course they have somewhat similar content, since they're about the same thing, but I don't think the MNT thing is just a copy of it. As for the other sources all looking questionable...I was hoping the Archives of Disease in Childhood journal article would help, as well as the OrphaNews thing, which seems to be more like a list of activities that were planned by multiple organizations (rather than just a reproduction of Eurodris' own press release); both of these sources are from the 2008 iteration, and thus aren't reproductions of any of the 2009 sources. Hope that helps clarify things, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll stay with the weak keep. [4] is basically a passing mention, but a relevant one. On top of the rest, I think there is a stronger keep argument than not. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) See above[reply]

• Weak Delete i'm going to say weak delete pending further sources. I'm not convinced that there is enough independent significant coverage of this. Most seem to be press releases and promotional in nature i cannot find evidence of this being noted in any newspapers, magazines etc. Is there anyt reason i can't just be merged into National Organization for Rare Disorders? --neon white talk 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the reason is given above in response to DGG's comment: it is only being sponsored by NORD this year, it's not actually part of NORD, so there would be no real reason to merge the whole thing into there as it's not exclusively associated with that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "EURORDIS", the only other page that would have a claim, does not yet exist. When it does, I am sure that they can also duplicate the information on their role with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's acknowledged by NORD. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a way we gauge notability of a subject. see WP:N --neon white talk 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reinforce - NORD was just created as a page (simultaneously, basically) so the justification falls short. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider nominating NORD as well but decided it was barely notable. It's at least mentioned in a couple of articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, the article currently cites such sources as Novartis, Medical News Today, Evan Harris, National Organization for Rare Disorders, as well as others. As such, it has received coverage from sources not linked directly to the creators of the day, which should satisfy notability guidelines. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification: NORD actually is related to the organizing of the day this year. But I agree with you that the rest of the sources you list are independent of it, as they are not event organizers for it or anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • As argued above, those sources are not reliable, at least, they reuse the same material or lack reputable authors to publish on the topic. Medical News Today is not a reputable news source. Novartis is a pharm company and is not a reliable news source. Evan Harris.org is a personal website and is not a reliable news source. These sources shouldn't even be -used- on Wikipedia according to the guidelines, let alone be used to justify notability. Following the links, none of those sites are very notable either, so your keep falls flat and is patently disqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria is used to determine that Medical News Today is not a reliable source? I see that some of the articles are written by doctors. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on establishing the reliability of a source not the other way round. If it can't be established that it is peer reviews and has a reputation it is considered unreliable. --neon white talk 20:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMundo. Also, Novartis can certainly be a reliable source. If they were talking about a product of their own, it would be a primary source, which of course won't cut it. But unless they have direct financial interests in Rare Disease Day, which I see no indications of, I would consider them a very important secondary source, though of course not necessarily an unbiased one. As for Evan Harris, I just figured that an MP openly talking about this event is yet another example of a secondary-source coverage of said event. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical news today is not a reliable source according to the medical website reliable source standards. Novartis is not a reliable source according to the medical website reliable source standards. And an MP talking about an event is not notable. It is a personal website and fails reliable sourcing. Come on, the guidelines are very clear about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Medical News today is not an academic medical journal, but is a independent source meeting WP:RELIABLE. We are not talking about a medical research topic but media coverage about a date. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It purports to give news on medicine. If it is not reliable as a medical source, then it cannot be deemed a reliable source seeing as how that is its topic. Sorry, but our reliable source standards are very clear about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a social thing, not a scientific one. Standards for scientific information are different than standards on news and events. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. As we get closer to the end of February more reliable sources will cover this international observance. More reliable sources: 1, 2, 3. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider adding those sources, as appropriate, to the article, in order for the article itself to clarify its notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, Jmundo. Unfortunately, the second is a reprint of the Medical News Today article, but the other two are very helpful. The IntraMed one particularly has a lot of information, and it's good to see some non-English coverage as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources for the guidelines to meet notability. Your own argument fails "depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Furthermore, this is a day that is a year old. If there were reliable sources, they would have been found by now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish website IntraMed is certified by the Project of quality medical websites in the Spanish language and the article is all about the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is only a Spanish translation of the press release. Even the four points are repeated. Furthermore, the pwmc is not part of reliable source standards here and cannot be held as showing that a website is a reliable source for medical topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a translation of the press release, here the translated version of the article. The subject of this article under discussion is not about a medical topic that requires a source as a medical peer reviewed journal, this is about 'an observance held on the last day of February[ to raise awareness for rare diseases." It's really not that complicated. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know the difference between a localized translation and a machine based translation, right? The talking points are the same. The quotes are the same. This isn't an original article, hence the lack of an author. This is a press release written for a Spanish speaking audience, nothing more or less. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of your question? The only purpose of the automated translation is to help facilitate this discussion and to demonstrate that the source covers the subject in depth. You want to called it a press release, fine, but you can't hide the fact that this date has received international media coverage. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "international media coverage", whatever that may mean. This is not a reliable source. It is also a spanish version of the same press release information. All information on this is from press releases. Anything in the NYT? The Examiner? How about even The Sun or the NY Post? Nothing in major media outlets. Nothing in reliable source medical outlets. Notability requires -independent- coverage, which means no press release information, and it needs to be substantial coverage, which actually dealing with it and discussing how it impacts anything. None of the sources have come to even close what would be necessary for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy doesn't necessarily require coverage in medical journals but if this was of note you'd expect it to be covered in them. --neon white talk 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that, exactly. Its that this purports to be a medical journal, or the sources listed do. However, they are not -reliable- medical journals that meet the requirements as such. So, they can't really be used. they are mostly hosts for press releases. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, Rare Disease Day was initiated by EURORDIS in 2008 as a European event through its Council of National Alliances - 16 countries (Though Canada, Taiwan and New Zealand got involved spontaneously). In doing so EURORDIS wished to initiate maximum participation and due to the response (Press and grassroots) it was decided to invite world partners, hence the participation in 2009 of NORD in the USA, Geiser Foundation in Latin America and China Dolls in China. Thus although the event is coordinated by EURORDIS, it is not a EURORDIS event, nor is it a pure NORD event. It is a collaborative effort which although only in its second year will be an annual event on the last day of February (the idea of the rare day!). This is underpinned with the use of a [website] seperate from each participating organisation in order to help raise awareness but also portray solidarity. So if there isn't as much independent coverage as we might be like or to justify an independent Wikipedia page I can assure that this is on the way. Though I think that the strongest argument for not deleting or merging this page resides in the collaborative nature of the day and the fact that judging already by the patient testimonies on Flickr and YouTube the day is well on its way to developping a life of its own. P.S. Just for clarity I am the Web Communications Manager for EURORDIS, and having noticed thanks to a post above here that there is no EURORDIS Wikipedia page have set about creating one in which I will clarify further the EURORDIS involvement. CostelloDc(talk) 13:05, 17 February 2009 (CET)

EURORDIS is not even notable enough to have its own article, and your entry shows a sheer conflict of interest. You have no right to have a say in this based on WP:COI, and any creation of EURORDIS by you would be a WP:SOAP violation. I have removed your vote because of WP:COI. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to know, the above account was created only a short time ago to write the EURORDIS page, which is connected to the rare disease day page. Why they came here suddenly and at the time that is most convenient to trying and keeping these related page? Well, that is something only to wonder about. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the closing admin and can't strike this user's !vote. The user may be in a COI with regards to the Eurordis article, but not with this one, so the vote can remain and the closing admin can decide whether or not to weigh it. As for the Eurordis article, I have already contacted this user about COI issues and intend to help with rewriting that article later.

You seem to be insinuating that there's something suspicious about a new user's "convenient" arrival at this page. I can assure you that I have had no contact with Eurordis or any of these organizations; what is most likely is that the big AfD tag on the page got someone's attention and prompted them to create an account. Lots of people first learn about editing in much the same way, and there's no point trying to scare off an editor just because you don't agree with the reason he/she first joined Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All users have the right to strike the vote of a single purpose account that was created on the same day as voting. Now, you are acting awfully suspicious and I think that you either contacted the company or may have created a second account. I have half a mind of filing a CU report over this, especially with your recent actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the drama and assume good faith, specially with an established editor. You really need to take this to another forum. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I created a second account? Go perform a checkuser, come on, I dare you.

And by the way, anyone has the right to participate in these discussions. It's likely that this is a person who was never interested in editing Wikipedia before, but saw this discussion and became interested. Like Jmundo said, you need to assume good faith. I am getting tired of you following me around Wikipedia to hound me and spew bullshit accusations. Do a checkuser if you want, really, and when it shows that I have no sock accounts I'll take you to ANI. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith does not mean to accept when someone creates a brand new vote to promote a topic and vote. That is a single purpose account. That is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Unstriking his vote is unacceptable and edit warring. No one just -sees- this discussion. Its not in a standard area. And you can call the "accusations" anything you want, but -you- decided to unstrike his vote, -you- decided to help him, and -you- are acting incredibly suspicious. You just happen to create two basically unknown pages about unknown groups and a third that is related just happens to come by when it is most convenient to you? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, be suspicious, do the checkuser. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, WP:AFD may not be a standard area that non-users just "see," but there is an article in article space with a giant AfD tag on it. People can see that. Don't blame me for people looking at the article and wanting to participate in the discussion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so unless you can somehow prove that I am User:CostelloDc (which I am not) or that I asked EURORDIS to get involved with this (which I haven't) then you need to shut the fuck up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to shut the fuck up"? Another comment like that will likely have consequences. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to deal with SPAs is to mark the post with the spa template, removing, changing or otherwise altering another editor's posts is not appropriate. However this user is not a spa, there are other edits unrelated. --neon white talk 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, as entries could be completely removed. I simply struck it through, which is proper in all cases of "voting". And have you even bothered to look at their contributions? This proves that it is an SPA. They edited only EURORDIS related pages and came here out of no where. Your comments suggest that you didn't even bother to look at the contributions, which is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, there are blogs cited, but there are also academic journals cited. In this case, the breadth of coverage is helpful, since it shows it is not just an academic event. I also think it should be kept as a stand-alone article; as other editors have said, the Day is too intertwined with multiple sponsoring agencies to merge it into the article on NORD or EURODIS. —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An academic journal with a tiny mention of a day is not enough for notability. And multiple pages can talk about the same event, so your keep has no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the criteria is a 'peer reviewed journal'. The one in question is not one of any reputation. --neon white talk 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obviously, people need to tone it down around here. I'm not sure what to think of all of this, it has been a day or so since I looked in, but OR may have a point that there is some indication that the article is being inserted for almost a public service announcement kinda thing. There is at least some indication in that direction. I see that NORD, which was a redirect to a disambiguation page, now redirects to the rare disorders folks' article. There does seem to be some indication WP is being used for promostional purposes, not saying it is so, but there's at least smoke there for OR, not just smoke and mirrors :) .--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure, redirecting NORD was a bold edit in my opinion a correct one, i've proposed deletion of the disamb. as it only really has one valid entry. Every other linked article is long gone. --neon white talk 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I redirected it because the NORD disambiguation page had nothing useful on it; two redlinks and the article on Gare du Nord, and I doubt anyone uses NORD as a search term for that (maybe its code on the French train system is NORD or something, and in case of that I did leave a hatnote on the National Org. for Rare Disorders article). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll AGF that it was done in an effort to improve the encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appearance of the "EURORDIS employee" above who voted just after creation hinders any necessity of AGF right now. There is gaming of a system going on. The comments above by Neon white suggest that they are responding questions without doing the simplest of research. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that this is one of the most interesting and pathetic AfD discussion I have been involved. We get the point Ottawa, you don't want to assume good faith, but let this discussion move along. This AfD is about discussing if the article meets our criteria for inclusion. If you have other concerns take it to the appropriate forums. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when people come in here and vote "support" with patently false justifications, claiming that companies are notable when they aren't, that blogs and insignificant websites fit inclusion under reliable sources, and then start having new accounts appear and do this stuff, this is an issue for AfD. This AfD is being gamed. There is no legitimate justification to support this page existing, and the unbecoming actions by those supporting it only verifies that people are wanting to disrupt Wikipedia in order to force it to stay. This is a severe problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your comment as a personal attack, you are trying to imply that the users that have !voted for keep are in some way trying to game the system or "wanting to disrupt Wikipedia." I ask you to stop this drama and comment on content, not on the contributors. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By saying that I am saying that people are -trying- to do something, you are admitting that I am referring to an action and thus not a personal attack. Did you bother to read what NPA states by chance? I have every right to criticize potentially deceitful actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only problem is there are no deceitful actions, and you have no proof of any. First you said I'm socking...ever file that checkuser, or did you get scared? Now you say I'm gaming the system, just because a new user happens to agree with me. Any proof that I'm gaming the system off-wiki? Didn't think so. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should go here before responding like you did. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and you're potentially being a DICK. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(whistle) Timeout. Take ten, everyone, and cool down. This is doing no one any good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially no independent coverage; vast majority of article sources are press releases, near-verbatim reprints thereof, or from sources with a vested interest in the matter. Surely for an event that "Millions around the world will observe" one would expect at least some measure of demonstrated interest from the mainstream press, but an all-dates Google News search finds basically zilch. Hqb (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the sort of point Rjanag and Jmundo ought to respond to, because it is taken seriously by the closing admin, whereas the back and forth stuff probably won't be.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let get back to the search for sources to establish notability, I found this one from the Penn State Scout. Another new press release in Market Watch from the Centric Health Resources. Yes, the organizers of the Rare Disease day must be controlling the press in an evil plan to take over the world....--J.Mundo (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just recently added a source from the website of the United States National Library of Medicine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardley 'significant' detail there. --neon white talk 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to search by the Spanish term : "dia de las Enfermedades Raras". 1, 2, 3 Feder organization, 4, 5, 6, 7. An machine translator is available at google.translate. We need to start translating the term in other languages and I'm sure we will find more sources.--J.Mundo (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Parlez-vous français? More sources, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pour ceux qui parlent le français Press report from 2008 Rare Disease Day including articles in major national newspapers such as Le Monde and agencies such as AFP but also National TV (TF1, M6, France5, France2, France3 and Euronews) CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 February 2009 (CET)

Oh, wow, thanks for looking that up. Le Monde is to France what NYT and Washington Post are to the states; I can't access the article right now but I'll try to check it out later and add it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources given so far are anything but non-notable sources. Please find reliable news sources or medical sources. I would suggest - NYT, WaPo, Examiner, London Times, etc. Not having an appearance in these would only verify no notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- this article has many times as many RS as should be necessary to establish the topic merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reliable Sources" has been contested and not one has fallen under the guidelines. These are not notable sources. They are not reliable. They do not have medical standards when they purport to be medical related, and are obscure when they are purporting to be news related. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The best source so far is [[5]], the foriegn language sources are going to have to be verified before they are of any use and regardless an article probably shouldnt depend on foreign language sources for notability. --neon white talk 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what's wrong with the foreign sources. Of the Spanish refs Jmundo gave, the ones from El Dia de Ciudad Real, Murcia, and Vanguardia are all mainstream newspapers in Spain, and the articles are more than just passing mention; as this is an international event, it makes sense to include coverage from multiple nations. And I don't think there's a rule on the books anywhere saying that only NYT, Washington Post, and the other papers Ottava has listed can prove notability; indeed, there are tons of articles on WP that are sourced entirely to local newspapers and other small publications. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Danish sources: In Denmark, the day goes by the name "Sjældne-dag" ("Day of the Rare (plural)"). A Google search gave me lots of blogs and stuff, sure, but also the following notable and reliable sources: [6] - a program from TV 2 (Denmark) on rare diseases, for which organization Crown Princess Mary is protector, and the description mentions the day; [7] from the national Danish cancer society (independent and very strong Danish organization); [8] from Helse, a medium-known health-related magazine; and perhaps most importantly, [9], from Politiken, one of the largest Danish newspapers. Incidentally, I also found http://knr.gl/index.php?id=183&type=98&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=31729&cHash=4dc3f1b98f from Greenland, written in Danish. Now, I don't know if we've already established notability in the article, but I'm thinking we've pretty much established it here on the AfD. If nobody's added these sources to the article yet, then perhaps it's time that somebody did. I don't have the time or energy to do it right now, myself, unfortunately. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:52, 18 February 2009 (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.