Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (2nd nomination)


 * 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 non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Ironholds (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ORG. A club for 300 people that hasn't received any 3rd party recognition is not encyclopedic. Claims of those in the previous AfD that this particular organization is "well known in its field" amount essentially to saying that this particular organization has a lot of fans. Sorry that this is coming so soon after the previous nomination, but the sourcing claimed from the previous nomination by the keep !votes appears to me to be quite dubious. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - theres third party recognition right there in the reference section - inline cites just need to be added. Artw (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, it's probably too soon after the first AFD. Artw (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Plenty of references in print. Artw (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. On the process: this nom is too soon after a prior AfD just 5 weeks ago was decided as "keep." On the merits: Satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Article needs improvement, not deletion.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Enough press; and another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Blowdart | talk 08:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Does qualify, and appears to be too soon after previous decision. – Alex43223T 10:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep third-party recognition is given by newspaper articles. If they study something you don't like, that's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.