Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Cryptozoology

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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Cryptozoology[edit]

Defunct organization who's existence is sourced to conference proceedings (generally not considered reliable enough). Notability not established per the WP:ORG guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that the title of the article is incorrect. The organization was actually called the International Society of Cryptozoology. Here's a New York Times article about them, and there's more mainstream coverage out there. Zagalejo^^^ 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep sources have been found. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was once a member and have a few of their journals, I'll add them as refs. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, Zagalejo is right, the title should be changed to International Society of Cryptozoology. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An organization being defunct has nothing to do with notability, otherwise we should delete Confederate States of America and Zagalego has provided sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the leading society in its field,more than just notable. Pity it's defunct. They published an excellent journal, that is, IMO, a good reliable source on the subject. Perahps the nominator did not find thes ources because he searched under the wrong name. DGG (talk) 03:56, 23 January 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.