Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASCAAD

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. Although many of the "keep" arguments are remarkably flimsy, after two weeks of discussion I can't see any sort of consensus towards deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAAD

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

Non-notable organization, article being used like the organization's webpage. Prod contested. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an international learned society. I added a reference about the group's 2007 conference in Egypt. Here is a translation of the reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be a bona fide learned society with an international presence. This should suffice unless other evidence arises. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable organization. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks to me that consensus has already been reached. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps the notvote from IP69.226.103.13 is being discounted. Also, a Google search by the Arabic name gets 22 hits, a couple of which seem to be press releases about the conference, like the press-release-like source Eastmain provided. I still feel that this isn't enough. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability or significance of its subject. Holding an (arguably) notable conference does not entitle the organisation itself to a page per WP:NOTINHERITED (they can be adequately mentioned on the conference's page). Proof of existence as an academic organisation is also not proof of its notability per WP:EXIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - without deriding from my Delete vote above, procedurally speaking this AfD should have been closed as Keep on the basis of the prior arguments. It shouldn't have been re-listed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable discretion in deciding whether there have been enough policy-based comments. Since all 3 of them were "IT EXISTS", I can see why Tim though more comments were needed. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Recognized by UNESCO [1] and by the much-more-prominent North American organization ACADIA [2]. But this article is in bad shape: it needs much more in the way of reliable sources and much less in the way of first person prose. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2009 (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.