Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geelong Field Naturalists Club


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Geelong Field Naturalists Club

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before offering an opinion on this, I'd like to know the exact relationship between this organization and the Geelong Field Naturalists' Club (note the apostrophe) that was apparently founded in 1880. (A refounding in 1961 after a period of inactivity? The organizations' journals do have the same name.) An organization with that much history may well be notable, and the organization's activities as a publisher seem to set it somewhat apart from many such amateur societies. Significant coverage in independent sources, however, is hard to find on the Web. The article's original author is still active on WP, so I'll inform her/him of this AfD; perhaps s/he can provide some additional information. Deor (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Deor. The http://home.vicnet.net.au/~gfnc/ page seems to claim ownership of the same journals and publications so presumably it is the same organization in which case it is a definite Keep as there are enough mentions in Google Scholar for the organization, banding activities and publications. Shyamal (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * there are 16 mentions in Google scholar but some of them are passing mentions eg they made a submission to a study. there is still a lack of third party non trivial coverage that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Geelong Field Naturalists' Club and the Geelong Field Naturalists Club are one and the same, this might be a useful source for someone to track down. That's, in part, why I commented as I did above. Deor (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are reviews of the organization, ("The Geelong Field Naturalist Club formed in 1897, issued the Geelong Naturalist in the same year; but two years later, it was merged in the journal.." Google books preview of Nature in Australia‎ - Page 135 1917) and their journal http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU904024.pdf There are people whose fame includes being part of the organization http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A110213b.htm http://books.google.com/books?um=1&lr=&q=Geelong+Field+naturalist%27s+club&btnG=Search+Books and so on which count as independent third party non-trivial mentions. Their role in conservation activism is mentioned in http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/publicland/Submissions/pl-sub129.pdf http://books.google.com/books?id=OYrE_Gw7aAoC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=Geelong+Field+Naturalists+Club+opposed&source=bl&ots=Zafw0eQAYg&sig=CeglOPOaFxZa5BiiZ7Tr83p92nE&hl=en&ei=caxpStebFYnYtgOx-LWWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8 A bit of history is apparently covered in http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/HR9760320007.htm The only problem I see is the lack of clarity on the legal status of organizations in Australia and whether the one with the "Incorporated" suffix is a new form of an already existing organization. Shyamal (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (PS: oops edit conflict, sorry if there is some duplication)


 * The article at ADB did not think it trivial to mention the awards given to Edward Edgar Pescott by the GFNC, an organisation with which he had extensive involvement. The article also says "was associated with many natural history organizations', but few others are noted. Our article on Trevor Pescott says he founded the club in 1961, but I think we can assume there is a continuity in the organisation. The NLA gives GFNC, GFNC (1880) and GFNC (1961) as authors, their journal (not a newsletter) is called Geelong Naturalist. cygnis insignis 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable organisation with a well documented history. Nominators should remember that the world of published sources does not end with a quick and dirty google search. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * a google news search is a standard way of finding third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google is a way of finding reliable sources, ghits are not a rationale for deletion. cygnis insignis 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the no. of hits is not a rationale for my preference for deletion, it is the lack of actual third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The GFNC does have well over a century of history, though there was a period of, let's say, dormancy, followed by reestablishment. I do not currently have access to the published history of the club of its first half century or so, though I will try to obtain some further info. Maias (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mattinbgn above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 26 July 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.