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. A worthy organisation but the consensus is that it fails to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Fund[edit]

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

This article covers a real medical organization that does not appear to meet notability requirements. A general search turned up absolutely no mention in the media, and very little reference anywhere else (there is the official site, a few member/support pages, and various charity information sites that provide our only evidence that this is a real organization). The article was nominated for deletion shortly after creation, but was spared after the creator (who has worked on no other article, possibly due to a conflict of interest) introduced most of the present content. That content, it turns out, is copied directly from opusfund.org's Our Mission and About Us sections. It is possible that there exist some non-internet media that have documented this organization, though I find it doubtful, since no references (or content from anyone besides the creator) have been provided over the two-and-a-half years of the article's existence. The doctor to whom the second section is dedicated does have a significant history of scholarly papers, but that does not defend the existence of an organization presumably started by him. Martin Berka (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have removed the sections on the org's mission, and the bio on the doctor as they are word for word copies of material from the organisation that are explicitly copyrighted. As for the organisation, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tidied up the article, which consisted of one-and-a-half sentences so it was not comprehensible. However, the organization seems to be completely non-notable. Google News finds nothing. Google (after eliminating the much better known Opus Fund Services, a hedge fund manager) finds only self-referential material. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (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.