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. But also tagging "needs cleanup" given the concerns about the text quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Continence Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

promotional article, with no third party indication of significance. Extensive editing by undeclared but obvious paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is quite poor but the society is clearly notable, with plenty of coverage in independent sources, some of which are behind a paywall and many not in English. Have a look at UroToday, Renal and Urology News, Medical Design & Outsourcing, Nursing Times, and the BMJ. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have searched for sources that qualify as quality primary sources, and have been unable to find anything that indicates notability. Fails WP:GNG. There are also clear COI problems per nom - highly promotional in the least. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of non-primary sources. desmay (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A scholarly organization that publishes a notable academic journal and that runs international conferences ought to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added references about a report prepared by the society. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe content needs to be trimmed and promotional language needs to go for sure. But otherwise, it should be kept. Exploreandwrite (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a solution: Write an article for their journal, and add the necessary information about the society. If the promotionalism is removed from here there won't be much left. But the journal is notable , as it is listed in JCR with an impact factor of 3.2. There isno need for two articles, and the name most likely to be lookedfor on WP iis the journal name, not the society name. Alternatively, we could retitle and repurpose to the name of their journal, but there is no reason to keep promotional content even in the history, nor to encourage the writing of promotional artices. Better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)`[reply]
• Keep The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether the article is good. There are plenty of reports on its activities from independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain and Rathfelder. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline, thanks only to the solo independent ref by Eastmain (about the "IUGA / ICS joint report on the terminology"...). It'd be OK if any of the pubs listed by Rathfelder yielded a specific mention of ICS itself, or the ICS Annual Meeting. Permacultura (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (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.