Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutherland Astronomical Society

:{{la|Sutherland Astronomical Society}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sutherland Astronomical Society}})

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Sutherland+Astronomical+Society&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a gnews] reveals mainly event listings. 7 hits in 30 years of existence is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-established local science organization. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

: being "well established" is not the same as meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability presented.--Grahame (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. NN per WP:ORG. Local doesn't cut it either; needs national or international scope or profile. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, but additional references recommended. Fotaun (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

: WP:JUSTAVOTE no explanation given as to how WP:ORG is met. LibStar (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:*The long history of this organization in astronomy and availability of multiple third-party [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Sutherland+Astronomical+Society&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a references] seems to make this a poor candidate for deletion, or at least cast reasonable doubt on the process. Fotaun (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. But if the closer is considering Delete, re-consider Merge and redirect to a sentence or more at National Australian Convention of Amateur Astronomers, or a new article on such societies in Australia. Per WP:PRESERVE. -84user (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say Keep. I added references to verify the three discoveries (two comets and a nova) by members of the society. Failing that, merge as per 84user. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, as it has external references and some evidence of notability (new discoveries). Frankly, I don't know what we would gain by deleting it. Tom Harris (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

: see WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:: WP:NOHARM argues that we should pay attention to notability and reliable sources, which my comment also addressed. It's not particularly helpful or friendly to simply throw policy pages around as blunt arguments, particularly when they don't apply. Tom Harris (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (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.