Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakshina Kannada Rationalist 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 all. Consensus here seems to hold that at least the majority of these organisations are sufficiently notable for inclusion. It's possible that some aren't, but this is not best determined by a bulk AfD - if any participant feels that some of these in particular are non-notable, I advise an individual renomination. ~ mazca  talk 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association

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

Organisation fails to meet WP:N, lacking multiple third party links to not establish notablity. Initial searches provide no additional evidence of notability, with mentions in passing at most, and the article is unlikely to be improved.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the WP:N reasons, in most cases the articles having only self links:


 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw
 * Artw

Artw (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep These articles were only marked as having notability problems about 2 weeks ago, along with a large list of other skepticism related articles here. Myself and a number of other editors have been making edits to this list of articles, but we are only human.  I think it is premature to mark these for deletion since two weeks is not enough time for one set of editors to focus attention on such a long list of articles.  When I noticed this AfD request minutes ago, I did a quick Google News search for "Irish Skeptics Society" and found a number of articles immediately wherein their members were being quoted in articles on Reiki, cancer cures and paranormal challenges.  I suspect some of these other organizations will be similar.  I think it would make sense to wait a bit until there is evidence some effort has been made to improve each of these articles, before deleting. --Krelnik (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As one might expect, the article on is much better over on the Swedish Wikipedia here. Following the procedure recommeded on RFT I tried to put a "Expand Swedish" box over on that article to request its translation into English, but I got a red link.  It appears that template is not supported on the Swedish wikipedia.  I'm continuing to look at these other articles. --Krelnik (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see my mistake, you have to put the translation request here on the English side. Frankly I don't think the instructions make this clear. I have done this. --Krelnik (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added 10 references to Irish Skeptics Society from 7 different sources, including 4 articles from The Irish Times. As this took under two hours of work, including coding everything using citation templates etc, I'm doubtful of the claim of "Initial searches provide no additional evidence of notability" However, there may be issues with fixing some of the others as quickly due to language issues.  (I do not speak Portuguese, Swedish or Hindi) --Krelnik (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added several references to Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham, including a 500 word piece in The Hindu that is entirely about the organization. There is press coverage up into 2008. Language is a problem here because some of their publications and work are done in Malayam --Krelnik (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added several references to Tarksheel Society but language is an issue here. I found ten of the books they published on worldcat, but they are all in Panjabi.  I suppose I could cite them but I'd just be blindly cutting and pasting. I suspect that much of their coverage is in Panjabi in the local press as well. I did find one feature article about the founder & the org in a Korean newspaper, that provides non-trivial coverage. --Krelnik (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/weak keep on all, except Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas and possibly Irish Skeptics Society(see below) — Rankiri (talk):
 * Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
 * http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/yw/2003/05/31/stories/2003053100110300.htm
 * Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham: I speak neither Hindi nor Malayalam, but according to Google, the name of the organization rougly translates to "Keralite Rationalist Association".
 * http://pgovindapillai.info/ArticleFiles/3bb7d66f-b7ed-f229-038a-0000109bd933p.g.%20renaissance.culture.pdf
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=eDrsAAAAIAAJ&q=Kerala+Yukthivadi&dq=Kerala+Yukthivadi
 * http://books.google.com/books?num=50&id=eDrsAAAAIAAJ&dq=Kerala+Yukthivadi&q=Yukthivadi#search_anchor
 * Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning, from Google Scholar:
 * http://w3.nada.kth.se/~forstorp/NobelmuseetForstorp.doc (translation)
 * http://www.nada.kth.se/~forstorp/forstorp.pdf
 * Indian Rationalist Association:
 * http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0713/1224250543047.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/weekinreview/may-13-19-fear-itself.html (brief factual reference) — Rankiri (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarksheel Society
 * http://www.indianexpress.com/news/courtesy-tarksheel-many-pledge-to-live-afte/443587/
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chandigarh/Lady_donated_her_body_for_education/articleshow/2760129.cms
 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20888777_ITM (brief mention of a co-organized national convention)
 * Science and Rationalists' Association of India
 * http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=30340
 * http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272630
 * http://nirmukta.com/2009/05/13/inr-2500000-to-astrologers-who-accurately-predict-results-of-india-parliament-election-2009/
 * http://www.newsindia-times.com/nit/2003/10/31/tow-29-top.html
 * http://www.telegraphindia.com/1010612/the_east.htm#head7
 * http://people.du.ac.in/~nandini/NWISSJ396P.pdf
 * Sociedade da Terra Redonda (Round Earth Society)
 * http://veja.abril.com.br/050602/p_084.html (translation)
 * http://www.cpopular.com.br/cenarioxxi/conteudo/mostra_noticia.asp?noticia=1341912&area=2259&authent=3F7104FC73EFCB38BA03377424CCF3 (translation) — Rankiri (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another two for Indian Rationalist Association:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/outlook/2008/07/080703_india_outlook_challenge.shtml
 * http://www.iheu.org/node/552 Lippard (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It took me less than 30 seconds to identify these English-language, third-party media pieces citing the Indian Rationalist Association, including the New York Times.—Loxton (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is silly. It's childsplay to find reputable citations of the Indian Rationalist Association, including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Times Online, New Zealand Herald, and so on. The claim that "Initial searches provide no additional evidence of notability, with mentions in passing at most, and the article is unlikely to be improved" is badly off base. Can we get some elaboration on the good faith motivation of flagging this article for deletion? — Loxton (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most of these results are in fact trivial mentions. I think we should concentrate on finding significant coverage by WP:RS sources and judge every nominated organization on an individual basis. I'm still on the fence about most of them. — Rankiri (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Brief isn't necessarily the same as trivial. The ordinary media pattern for notable skeptical organizations is to be briefly cited in articles whose main focus is some paranormal claim. But in any event, other significant articles explicitly focus on the Indian Rationalist Association, such as this New Zealand Herald feature.Loxton (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I added nine different sources for the Indian Rationalist Association—all reputable, and several of them features about this group. What's the next step for closing this discussion and removing the deletion flag?Loxton (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added further citations for the Indian Rationalists Association, and several to the similarly named Science and Rationalists' Association of India and Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association as well. It's a lot of sudden work for someone not on the Indian scene. These articles should have had lesser flags for citations needed or proposed for deletion, particularly because the basic fact of their notability was obvious with a half minute on Google. A drive by tagging of nine articles with a heavy-handed Articles for deletion is unreasonable. Loxton (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Swedish Skeptics organisation is one of Europe's largest. I have just translated the Swedish article and replaced the old stub here on en-Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Indian Rationalist Association is larger and older than most U.S. skeptical groups, and I second Loxton's point on that one. Lippard (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Irish Skeptics Society hosted the 13th European Skeptics conference, so they're organised enough to be a significant part of a continent-wide event. I also found a reference to them that wasn't already included. They are fulfilling a role as the "go to" people for the skeptic position on various topics in the media. Autarch (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with Autarch and disagree with Rankiri on this - we should definitely keep Irish Skeptics Society. The fact is they were asked to host the European conference, and 30 minutes of googling came up with four different mentions of them in The Irish Times (which is the "paper of record" in Ireland, equivalent to the New York Times here). I think what many people here forget is how quickly some online news sources expire old articles, thus effectively erasing them from Google's view.  I've found many of the news archiving services do a poor job of keeping articles visible to Google News -- stuff that I looked at in January for an article I was working on has already disappeared.  The net effect of this "news memory hole" is that if your subject doesn't have a significant article within your local press outlet's expiration window (often 6 months to a year), suddenly they appear to be non-notable to Wikipedia, even though plenty of other sources are available if one digs deeper. The deadline on an AfD request is often not amenable to digging deeper here.  I.e. I can't drop everything and run to my local library to find the right sources, I have to rely on Google -- which has flaws.  --Krelnik (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to add that my "keep" applied to all, not just the ISS - as this is a bulk delete, I'll err on the side of caution and voted bulk keep. Autarch (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas (Brazilian Society of Skeptics and Rationalists). Unreferenced. No results on Google News and Google Scholar. One seemingly trivial mention on Google Books. Google Web shows 84 unique results for "Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas" -wiki -blog. I randomly translated about 20-25 of them and I couldn't see any signs of significant, nontrivial coverage by reliable sources. I'm also not that sure about Irish Skeptics Society. The added references don't seem to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. — Rankiri (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete on Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas. There are more references if you go outside English, but not many. Their site also seems broken (lots of dead links). — Loxton (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Given this is a bulk Afd, I'll give a bulk vote. As pointed out by others above, many of these groups obviously fulfills WP:N. If the nominator feels that individual groups don't, their articles should be nominated individually. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just noted the tag on the Swedish organisation, which until now wasn't assessed for WP:SWEDEN, so the nomination hasn't been visible on that project's "screen". While that organisation works mainly in the Swedish language, I would consider it notable due to many prominent members (established scientists and educators) and a long track record of fairly extensive media coverage. Tomas e (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As pointed out above, this is a bulk afd. I am not familiar with a few of the organisations. But bulk of these seem to reasonably notable. I second Loxton. Many of the citations seem to be in the local languages for the Indian organisations. --Sulfis (talk) 14:23, 3 September 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.