Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidenhead Astronomical Society


 * 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. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maidenhead Astronomical Society

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

This article has been speedily deleted several times, citing lack of notability assertion. The current version has a borderline assertion of notability, however clearly fails WP:N. Googling "Maidenhead Astronomical Society" provides 100 links, and I can't find any news items reporting on the society. The article also has no citations, and basically lacks all grounding for an wikipedia article. -Toon0 5 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Some citations have been added, however they are no more than listings of the society, and contain no information other than to assert that the organisation exists. Two of the citations actually have nothing to do with the group. -Toon0 5 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm on a losing battle. The society has had reports in the local paper which don't exist on their website, as well as UK astronomy magazines. I appreciate you taking the time to review this article, and very much appreciate your comments. I originally use the Birmingham Astronomical Society wiki page as guidance for material that makes the grade, but it seems theirs is not a good template to work from as, according to the standards applied to my article, theirs has no notability either. I guess there is nothing more I can do to stop the deletion. Mbandrews (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, Birmingham Astronomical Society isn't a very good article; I've tagged it for sources and improvement, because it may actually be slightly notable. If those don't appear, though, it should probably also be deleted. Look at our good articles for examples of high-quality ones to use as templates. I hope you take this as a learning experience and create better articles in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral I was going to vote 'keep' because I saw citations present. However, as Toon05 said, they contain merely mentions of the institution. Mbandrews, if you provide additional citations that pass WP:RS, I would be willing to switch my vote from 'neutral' to 'keep'. Happyme22 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After the article was expanded, I was quite willing to try to add to and improve it further, but after having a look around, I could barely find any mention of the society anywhere on the web - the only news article being an aside, mentioning that some guy who build a telescope in his front garden was in the society. The Notablility guideline states: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization" - the group clearly has neither national nor international scale activities, and there doesnt seem to be information that can be verified by reliable, independent organisations. It also states: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. and Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. - as a member of the 'a member of the Federation of Astronomical Societies' surely this subject should exist as a section under "members" of this federation. There is no way this article qualifies as "notable" on its own. -Toon0 5 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Significance appears to be solely WP:LOCAL, and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability isn't inherited, so simply having Patrick Moore involved isn't really enough. --Blowdart | talk 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK chaps. I see where you are coming from so please don't waste any more time on this but instead send the article to the bin. I clearly have a lot to learn. Mbandrews (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless aforementioned reports in UK astronomy magazines discuss the society and its notability in more depth than a passing mention. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 25 June 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.