Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorian Speleological Association Inc.

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 no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Speleological Association Inc.[edit]

A contested PROD with the reason "Added some notable contributions that the club has made to the world of speleology. The wikipedia contains many such clubs from around the world and I think it's important to also acknowledge the VSA". While I am sure the organisation is a worthy one and does great work, the article has no independent reliable sources and the subject does not meet WP:ORG. Mattinbgn/^talk 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Australian Museum reference links names of the discoverers to members of the Victorian Speleological Association Inc. as per their website which even allows for direct contact to verify their involvement. -- Vicspeleo

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As WP:VSCA. No assertion of notability, and as per nom no reliable sources within the article which would help it meet the criteria of WP:ORG Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for a version of the article to be written entirely from material taken from what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, which are independant of the group or its members? Do these independant, reliable sources demonstrate how this particular group meets any of the various notability inclusion guidelines? Failing that, delete as unable to meet the Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- saberwyn 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten the article and pointed out that the role of the VSA in exploration and conservation is acknowledged in the Mount Eccles National Park and Mount Napier State Plan [1] and their publications are cited by Australian State Government agencies in guides to various cave systems. [2] [3] If their work is good enough for the Victorian State Government it should be good enough for us. Nick mallory 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think a passing reference to the organisation is enough to make it notable. How about adding the VULCON handbook to the article, what it is, and the major organisations that rely upon it, and I reckon the article would stand a better chance of staying. Assize 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about you adding it as we're all supposed to be building an encyclopedia together? Nick mallory 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and I've already spent a lot of time researching and fixing up Pakenham Secondary College which was proposed for deletion (and I am about to add a bit more). The comment wasn't meant to be directed at you, but to the discussion in general. I apologise if I offended you. I didn't want to vote delete. However, in hindsight, I should have just voted and added my comments there. When I finish with Pakenham, I will have a go at this. Assize 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The mentions in the references are passing mentions, and don't yet establish notablility. Could easily establish notability as organisation's work is often cited (see Google Scholar) and I suspect that the VULCON handbook may be an "industry standard". Assize 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references that Nick Mallory are enough to establish notability for mine together with the museum references. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think the references that exist in this article are very weak. However, I'd err on the side of caution here. Lankiveil 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the only reference about the subject of this article is the sport.vig.gov.au link, which is a directory entry. Most promising looking link is the first one, and VSA is only mentioned twice in that reference which is a management plan.Ga rr ie 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to fulfil WP:ORG. Recurring dreams 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not just a club. Publishes books and is cited in academic works. John Vandenberg 08:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please tell me, what criteria of either WP:N or WP:ORG does this article meet? Garrie 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Do you honestly believe that an organisation of this type that has been in existence in one form or another since 1957 does not have substantial material written about it? Per the deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". John Vandenberg 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have improved the information and added some more references regarding the discoveries of the megafauna as well as the fact a special report was aired on Australian television in 2006. Vicspeleo 00:35, 6 June 2007 (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.