Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Technics


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

General Technics

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

Neither the article nor Google give any indication that this is a notable organisation of sci-fi fans. There seems to be no substantial independent coverage of it.  Sandstein  19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was really up in the air about this one. However, after reviewing the guidelines under Notability and the way it applies to organizations like this one, as listed under 3.1 Non-commercial organizations, I came down on the keep side for two reasons.  The first is that the requirement for inclusion states that “…The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. “ This can be judged easily by looking at their membership list and can be verified by the coverage in the book Science Fiction Culture, as shown here   The second reason is that: “…Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.”  This again can be easily proved by this reference. [www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hard_science_fiction].  Tough call, but have to go with Keep.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The website www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hard_science_fiction is just a copy of an old version of our own article on hard science fiction and therefore can't serve as a reference for the article. This means that the organisation fails the second criterion of Notability (organizations and companies) – the general notability guideline – and its scope is therefore irrelevant.  Sandstein   06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in the cited book, the organisation is mentioned just once in passing as "a group of fans called General Technics who are still around". That's not the substantial coverage required for notability.  Sandstein   06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - How about these -  -  - .  ShoesssS Talk 11:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Online i can find only blogs mentioning this group, and checking print sources of SF finds only one mention in Science fiction culture, which just shows that at the time of print they existed. No mentions in 5 other SF enyclopedias: I can't find anything that makes them notable. All the links above are blogs and one con - being at a convention is not sufficient for notability for a person, and shouldn't be for a group.Yobmod (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no substantial coverage, fails WP:N and WP:V - hopefully the organization can provide reliable 3rd party references, I liked the article. - DustyRain (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2008 (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.