Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Is not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Probably borderline. Google turns up a decent number of hits, but Gnews only turns up 14 or so. The mentions seem to be incidental in the context of human interest articles about paranormal phenomena, but there are enough to suggest that the Association is a standard place for reporters doing articles on paranormal types in Britain to call for sourcing. I conclude that it fails WP:ORG marginally -- not quite enough weight from mentions to make it all the way in, and none of the articles address the organization in too much detail. RayAYang (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established with 25 year history. Needs to be tagged or fixed with references and cleaned up. But otherwise it's A-okay! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ChildofMidnight and it does need expanding and sourcing. (Emperor (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Resess (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited third party coverage as revealed in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - niche organisation. However, I find that it has been quoted by The Times [1] persuasive. Also a number of hits on Google Books.[2] Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some highbeam hits here [3] a couple google news hits here [4]. A well established organizations going back over 25 years. Fringey yes, but why is this up for deletion? I don't know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the amount of hits, but what's in the hits that has to be significant. Smile a While and ChildofMidnight hit the nail on the head. This organization has a track record in its field, is mentioned in detail in multiple sources, and has famous people as members. All reasons to keep this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 21 November 2008 (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.