Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrian Speleological 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The result was Withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) Kpg  jhp  jm  01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Austrian Speleological Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Of the provided citations, all but two are affiliated with the subject, and the final two don't mention the subject and are used in the article to note the accomplishments of supposed members of the organization. Additional google searches turn up nothing in English or German. Does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly not WP:ORGCRIT which is even stricter. Rosguill talk 06:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First off : I have absolutely no time to edit at the moment, was just looking something up.
 * I am the first to admit that the article can be improved. As he stated on my user page: you are welcome to improve it.
 * Third, anyone who sees what I write and edit, anyone who knows me, will say that I stand for quality, i stand by WP rules as anyone would.
 * I feel strongly that the article has a right to remain, just like all other articles on speleological associations have an unchallenged presence, which have similar quality (issues). Australian Speleological Federation, Circolo Speleologico Romano, French Federation of Speleology, and so on every nation I can think of Germany NZ whatever . Of these, the Austrian sp assoc is actually a salient one, and it had no WP presence, which is why I wrote it! I am not even a member of it, have no "interest" in it. It was pure community service.
 * In conclusion, I am not sure that Rosquill is fair here. I do not what his agenda is, focusing on just this article. It appears like a witchhunt. Rosquill hasnt been on WP long, (6 mths, made 200o edits  a Grognard), never created new articles, but boasts a section "Page Kill Count" on his user page. I am a grandparent, in comparison. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Withdraw proposal there is a precedent that national-level speleological organizations are notable by default. signed, Rosguill talk 07:37, 13 September 2018 (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.