Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization. Search on News returned a couple of trivial mentions. Some more mentions on books and scholar, but all of a trivial nature. Nothing on the other engines. No in-depth coverage at all.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete coverage is extremely limited. I only found hits confirming people were members of the society, but nothing indepth about the society. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 23:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably real, but a complete lack of any reliable secondary materials means we can't write a quality article about it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient coverage to pass WP:ORG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News and browser but a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep while in fact most occurances in print of the society's name are mere mentions, those editors who indicated that it had no substantive coverage in secondary sources missed a fair number of book sources. For example to list three I found within the first twenty Google book hits (there were 506 hits listed): The page+ (pp. 162–164) in Graham Oppy's book The Antipodean Philosopher: Public Lectures on Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand, which discussed not only the society's antecedents, and its founding but also the importance of a number of the articles published by it. The introduction to Trauma, History, Philosophy (2009) discusses the 2006 conference of the society in detail, which is quite proper as the book is a compilation, under the editorial oversight of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, of papers presented there. The society is also covered in a full paragraph (page 326, note 32), not just a passing mention, in Judith Butler's and Rosi Braidotti's "Out of Bounds: Philosophy in an Age of Transition" in Rosi Braidotti's After Poststructuralism: Transitions and Transformations.  The society certainy verifies, and has substantive coverage in reliable independent sources.  Whether that coverage is significant is a judgment call.  I come down on the side of yes.  Graham Oppy's book also shows the significance of the society in the field of endeavor, and as the related guideline (WP:NJOURNAL) says:  is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.   --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The ASCP appears to have a significant ongoing presence in the university sector and the article could be greatly lengthened from this publication amongst others. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2015 (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.