Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer 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. Consensus indicates that the origanization is sufficiently notable for inclusion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability for this Association not established with any reliable sources and so fails WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as needing re-write for two years with no signs of progress. As the article is rambling with the majority of text off-topic or generic it seems sensible to delete this article and let an editor start afresh if there is any demand for information here about the "CIAA". Ash (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't remember how it is that I'm watching this article, but anyway... The organisation does exist and seems to be notable; although it's called the "Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers" (no redundant 'Association'). It's referred to in news sources, book sources, even a couple of academic papers. "Article is badly written" is for discussion on the talk page, not deletion, is it? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidance of WP:BEFORE applies. As the article has been tagged as suggested in that guidance and two years then pass with no interest and no one is bothered enough to add a source in order to demonstrate notability; there must be a time where the guidance of WP:BEFORE is satisfied and we are ready to go to deletion. If you think two years may not be long enough for a response to a clean-up template, what other criteria would you recommend?—Ash (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not about you doing nothing but waiting on the sidelines for some (non-existent) time limit to expire. It is about you searching for sources yourself, before nominating articles for deletion.  What effort did you put into doing that?  There's no mention of your doing any searching for sources yourself in either your nomination or what you write above.  Don't sit on the sidelines doing nothing.  This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for the long-standing procedures in this regard.  If you think that something lacks sources, your first response should be to try to find them yourself.  It should not be yet more tag-and-wait-on-the-sidelines-doing-nothing, with a deletion nomination.  "no signs of progress" is everyone's responsibility, including yours.  Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.  Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been much debated on the pages of WT:AFD and I do not see much that specific in the guidance. In order to make your point, could you please direct me to some authoritative guidance with respect to AFD rather than part of your own user pages?—Ash (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user page shows you where in policy the procedure comes from, as well as for how many years this has been expected practice of Wikipedia editors. Read.  Learn.  Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop repeating yourself when all it does is harass Ash. Read. Learn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment : Someone here has asserted that references establishing notability exist but no one has bothered to insert them into article with even sekeleton refs ( "notability is established from [1,2,3,]"). I guess you could leave tagged stuff in a state of limbo since eventually someone will fix it or require that the person asserting that refs exist to make it notable just go ahead and insert 1 or 2 of them into the article. 67.166.244.55 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I can see, the association fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How far is that? (I mean, what was your judgement based on?) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep&mdash;Organization definitely exists and a quick google book/scholar search demonstrates there are sufficient sources available to establish notability. National amateur astronomy organizations are certainly worthy of retention. The article can be cleaned up, so I suggest a copy edit rather than deletion.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to correct name of the organization, Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers. I have added a lede and two more references to the article; several other references are also available (as pointed above) that clearly establish the organization's notability. Any remaining article issues can be discussed on talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment  : Is this group practicing a static art something like European Astrology, only culturally Indian, or are they contributing to the science of astronomy? There are numerous groups of amateur astronomers around the world that do all kinds of research that would not qualify for professional funding. Also there is an astronomy conference once every three years just ended. They may not have many free leaders to defend this for a week or so. --Dgroseth (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Astronomy is one of the few scentific fields where amateurs still make major contributions, so I would accept a national organization of this sort as likely to be notable.   DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic of amateur astronomy may be notable but this fails WP:ORG. While there are some google hits in news, web, and scholar, there aren't many and all appear to be passing mentions rather than ones where the organization is the subject of the article.  In most cases it appears that they are articles about people who identify themselves as part of this organization.  These articles are great for demonstrating the notability of those individuals but do little to demonstrate the notability of this organization. RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename to Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers. The 19 Gnews, 7 Gbooks, 4 Gscholar and other GWeb hits combined ensure that the org pass our general notability guideline. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Counting hits isn't the best indication of notability. Of the hits you mention above, which ones do you feel could be used to demonstrate notability here?  Is the organization the primary subject of any of those hits?  Could you expand on how you feel those hits help this article meet general notability guidelines? --RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course number of hits doesn't matter, but if you read the Gbooks hits, it provides in depth coverage sufficient to write an article. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about the news articles you see as establishing notability here?--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ,,,,,, all work for me. There are more. Even articles which quote the organization's general secretary as an authority show notability for the org, since he is being quoted as representing the org. This book mention (New trends in astronomy teaching published by Cambridge University Press) only confirms what frequent press reports do - the organization is a very notable amateur astronomer and teaching association. Priyanath talk 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. Notability has certainly been proven. Priyanath talk 20:42, 19 August 2009 (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.