Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial life organizations

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial life organizations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prod declined. Not an actual list of any notability but a lumping of three unrelated groups. The International Society of Artificial Life may or may not be notable for its own article, could be merged with Artificial Life (journal). Biota.org is not a notable website, with related articles under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Barbalet. I can't find any evidence of notability, even for being worthy of inclusion in a list, for the defunct Grey Thumb Society. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move- if not deleted, this should be moved to List of Artificial life organizations - the topic Artificial life seems notable and "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as per WP:LISTN - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an organization entirely sourced from their own organizational documentation, a self-published web page sourced to itself, and a society that is entirely unsourced. At an absolute minimum, for a list topic to notable it either needs to be sourced as a topic (someone needs to have published such a list in a WP:RS) or the list members themselves need to be independently notable, neither of which seems to be the case here. Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source of credibility, barely meets GNG, pick any. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOPRIMARY, and WP:SOAP. Syndicater (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae. This page has no intent, and yet it still fails at its intent. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:56, 13 May 2019 (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.