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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Prevention Research Institute (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)

Article deprodded. PROD reason still stands: Article entirely based on primary sources (that partially fail to verify the statements made, for example ref. 6). A Google search does not readily unearth any independent sources about this institute either. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete I think that perhaps they're notable, but you'd have to infer it from the bios of some of the principal researchers. I'm not sure we would want to do that. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete despite the fancy name, when i checked the gnews search, most of it merely confirmed its existence. but no sign of its achievements. fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reluctantly. This institute has some very high-powered and notable people associated with it, and some of its studies have been mentioned in Reliable Source media [1], but no significant coverage. It gets a couple of hits at Google Scholar, but mostly for articles with multiple authors where the principal author is from some other institution. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON for this four-year-old Institute to have achieved proper recognition, but at this point I find it lacks notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2013 (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.