Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australasian Law Teachers Association


 * 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. While consensus is not 100% to keep, it's good enough. This discussion has been open for four weeks. It's time to move on here, nothing to see. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Australasian Law Teachers Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can find nothing notable about this organization aside from "it exists". I've looked for verifiable, third party references and found none of any merit. Lithorien (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, will be blocking author momentarily for username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I am surprised that anyone would say that this article deserves deletion. What is not notable about a professional association that represents law teachers in universities all over Australia? I concede that the quality of the article needs improving. As far back as 1996 a conference of this organisation was addressed by Michael Kirby, a Justice of the High Court of Australia (the most senior court in Australia). It has been reported on by Reuters, one of the most reputable news services in the world. There are numerous references to the ALTA at the Australian National Library. For example this one reporting on the 46th conference in 1991! This article should be allowed to improve.--Greenmaven (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just have to make a comment here. You bring up sources that are supposed to be reliable and notable, but the Reuters link is just an, "I went there, it was nice," article, and the listing in the library was created by the ALTA themselves. It's just some papers presented at one of their conferences. In addition, if the article has such strong merit, why are there only two citations, both of which point to resources created by the association itself? Where are the reliable third party sources? The entire article reads like an advertisement and the only reason I didn't ask for a speedy delete under A7 was in the hope that someone could find reliable sources and save the article... and nobody's stepped up yet. But please, feel free to improve it if there are reliable, third-party sources you can find! -Lithorien (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for reliable sources then try checking the many hundreds found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed by the nomination process. They are linked in the expectation that nominators of, and participants in, AfD discussions will use them to inform their opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep -- I agree with the comments above. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, just as we normally do for all national or international level professional associations that are the principal one in the subject field.. It can be difficult getting the usual sources, but they're always findable if adequately looked for.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Relisted. The question of existence of reliable sources remains open and merits further investigation. Dcoetzee 06:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just a blog, but this notes the 64th ANNUAL CONVENTION of this scholarly association and journal publisher. Deletion here would do nothing whatsoever to improve the encyclopedia. Use common sense, which is what Ignore All Rules means. Carrite (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not what IAR means...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per . Most of the 700 hits on google books merely namedrop their convention, but there is enough material out there to establish notability. Yoenit (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep. It has a weird smell about it, but I can't see a reason to justify deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:05, 7 December 2011 (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.