Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical Society of New South Wales

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. Claims of notability are not substantiated by sufficient evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Society of New South Wales[edit]

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

Little on this astronomical society of 450 members. User:Hell in a Bucket nominated it for CSD; I foolishly thought I could save it and found few references of note. Bringing it up for AfD with respect to notability as I truly am having difficulty dissecting what to do with it -- Samir 05:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear to me why on Earth this should be deleted. The ASNSW is a major non-for-profit organisation, and many such organisations have wikipedia entries. Ok the entry is a little short, but as I noted in the comments, this is a stub in the process of being fleshed out. And I'm not actually a formal member (although I've been to their meetings) so it's certainly not self-promotion. I was just hoping to fill a hole in wikipedia's coverage. So is the deletion because this is my first attempt at writing a new entry? I guess so. In which case I'm beginning to see why wikipedia has such a bad reputation as being a "old boys club". If this is a closed shop then say so and I'll go away and do something more useful with my time. StarryMan (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, StarryMan, what this article needs is a list of reliable sources that are independent of the ASNSW and discuss the subject in a reasonable amount of depth. If you supply a list of such sources, then you're definitely looking at a "keep" outcome for this AfD; but if no such sources are provided within the seven days, then the prognosis would very likely be "delete". (Note that you don't need to amend or expand the article within that timescale to see that it's kept; all you need do is show that decent, reliable sources exist.)
If you do not have time to find the sources within the seven days, but you would still like to work on it, please post to say so and I will see that the article is "userfied".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually appears notable to me. Is there newspaper (preferably SMH) coverage of its activities? Orderinchaos 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a province-level academic organization, and their journal is found in no libraries except their immediate region [1]. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unfortunately, there is no WP:RS to show that this meets the WP:GROUP criteria … nothing but links to the subject's own website and a {{Dead link}}. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. It seems astounding but true that there is not enough published coverage. It is surprising that the South Australian equivalent has much more coverage [2]. Kevin (talk) 01:19, 20 October 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.