Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Wales Osteopaths Registration Board

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. Fails WP:ORG. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Osteopaths Registration Board

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; worthy but obscure medical licencing agency. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#Australia_.26_New_Zealand - neither obscure or low on notability - there is b... all else on wikipedia about osteopathy in australia - deleting is ignoring the lack of info about the practice/profession/subject in Australia - as for g anything as a referent point huh? - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=New_South_Wales_Osteopaths_Registration_Board Satu Suro 03:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that reference just shows 3 annual reports published by that organisation. not third party. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - still needs a merge rather than a delete - specially when there is buckleys about the profession on wikipedia for australia Satu Suro 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this organisation is so obscure that hardly anyone will know about it outside the occupation. any useful info about it is probably on its own publications. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the notability guidelines, absurd as they are. Plus, the article will just get created again next season anyways. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (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.