Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community of Physics


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Community of Physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cites no independent, reliable sources, and none were found in searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and Proquest. Without reliable third-party sources about the topic, there should be no article. Fails WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Worthy enterprise but notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete - No independent reference. Not notable. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though Google search engine may not find many third party links, the organization is already recognized by several academic networks, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu . It is newly born and growing organization. It's Division of Experimentation has published its first scholarly article on . -- Ashiqul Islam Dip (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC+6) — Ashiqul Islam Dip (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I can understand why you, as the author of the article, would want to keep it. "Newly born", however, is almost synonymous with "not notable". I congratulate Ashiqul Islam Dip et al., from the Community of Physics, on getting a paper published on arXiv. But you may not grasp the meaning of "notability" on Wikipedia. Things written by people associated with Community of Physics cannot establish the notability of the organization, only arms-length reliable sources can do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep- It has arranged several outreach programmes for undergraduate level students like Workshop on Classical Electromagnetism, Workshop on Classical Mechanics:From Newton to Lagrange . It is a promising organization of physics enthusiasts which is getting started,hence it has few external links.   KARL RODD (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC) — KARL RODD (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! A common misconception among novice editors is that notability is based on what an organization has accomplished. It isn't. The gauge of notability is whether people independent of the organization have considered it noteworthy enough that they have written and published in-depth works about it, without incentive or influence from those connected to the group. Postings on eventerbee.com and wherevent.com are self-promotion by the organization, they are not independent.
 * "Promising" and "getting started" strongly indicate that the group is not notable and thus not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. That could change in a few years if, for example, someone writes a book about the organization or Campus Star does a feature on it. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - One verifiable news about a workshop of the organization from an online news portal, Campus2Career24.com --Raoshon Aktar Banu (talk) 20:18, 02 December 2016 (UTC) — Raoshon Aktar Banu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - No independent coverage or reliable references, just promotional article about not notable topic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage by secondary sources aside from the occasional WP:FART mentioned by the keep votes just mentioning an event going on. Researchgate, etc. do not establish notability as these are generally indiscriminate listings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016 (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.