Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society

: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 --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

=[[Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society]]=

:{{la|Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. Fails to make a case that the subject passes WP:CORP. MER-C 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, article doesn't claim any notability outside local area. Fails WP:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations. Maybe replace with a mention in Scarborough, North Yorkshire? -- Smalljim 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Sources, No claim of notability, No real chance it is actually notable.--Work permit 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Work permit. Gwernol 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is the right way to add my thoughts, but I have added a history to the article and listed the three major publications (ie books rather than just the 'booklets' used for annual reports) that the society is responsible for. I don't know if this qualifies as 'notability', although I have seen the two older works (from 1953 and 1956) referenced by others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfns (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.
  • The question is not whether the society has published books, but whether there are multiple, non-trivial mentions of the society in books or other reliable sources - ones not published by the society. For example, articles about the society in a national newspaper would be an excellent source. Gwernol 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, given the nature and scope of the organization there should be something notable; tone of article does need to be tweaked though. Is this really any less notable than a single episode of southpark?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

: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.