Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

International Society for Philosophical Enquiry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite calls for better information to back up WP:ORG requirements through article tag since October 2012, there appear to be no reliable sources showing notability of this organization. Its existence is unquestioned, but the organization website itself suggests a very obscure, low-membership organization, whose members appear to the outside world solely through self-published books. There is basically no external information about the organization as such available through any reliable source. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There are additional sources in High IQ society. I'm not in a position to check them but our Wikipedia article on this topic, which is better sourced than this article, seems to suggest this is one of the early and notable high IQ societies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I check the sources on High IQ society too. (That article used to have entries for several entirely spurious organizations.) While the existence of the organization that is the topic of the nominated article here is beyond doubt, the requirements of WP:ORG do not appear to be met by all of the available sources in the aggregate. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion above indicating lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The only sources I can find are self-published. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2013 (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.