Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Amateur Radio Society

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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Amateur Radio Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews [1]. I will reconsider if someone provides evidence in Urdu (and not just say there must exist non English sources). LibStar (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I tend to think a bunch of amateurs being involved in the creation of Badr-1 (Pakistan's first Digital Communications Experimental satellite) [2][3] might just give it WP:N. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:CLUB and apparent prior consensus to use stubs instead of a pile of external links at the international club article, and the List of amateur radio organizations --Abd (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Membership of IARU is sufficient for notability. The article could do with expansion, but that alone is not reason for deletion. Dsergeant (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dsergeant, and along the lines of ARRL or ARES. It's notable, it just needs references for verifiability. Unsigned comment by Ks0stm talk, 19:47, 25 February 2010, note by Abd (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the general rule is that national organizations in any field and for any country are notable. It's established practice that there is nothing wrong with a stub article, either--almost every major article in Wikipedia was at the beginning a stub article, and usually unbsourced as well. If all that can be said at the moment is very little, we say it. Most encyclopedias have had very small articles, amounting just to listings or definitions. Diderot's Encyclopedie did, and most Brittanicas. We have real problems in that most of our articles on anything are inadequately sourced, or not up to date , or both, so why should we bother about trying to eliminate 100 stubs or thereabouts. If only marginal notability were the most serious difficulty we face! Live and let live is the only practical way of coping with a very large scale voluntary organization, DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 March 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.