Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCA International


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NASCA International

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Not a notable organisation. Only trivial mentions on Google News, Books. Unreferenced for three years. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times – Morning Call – The Telegraph – Indianapolis Star – South Florida Sun – Star Press – Newsweek Polska, as shown here . Plus a few Google Scholar hits as shown here, with, more than a few Google Books hits, as provided for here , I believe adds up to being within our Notability guidelines.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage". I claimed these are all trivial.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That’s why we have AFD – what you propose as trivial, I see as enough to qualify as significant for inclusion here at Wikipedia. I did reference the piece now.  So if it is kept, at least it is referenced.  There I agree 100% with you…..all articles should be cited.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - and that's why simply asserting that there are Google hits does not in itself constitute proof of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - See that, we are both in agreement here. Before I express an opinion here at AFD, I do try and make sure the article is properly sourced..  You are right, a lot of !votes are just that an expressed opinion.  If you are state side….Happy Thanksgiving if not have a pleasant day.  ShoesssS Talk 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A significant number of the sources above amount to a single sentence, or aren't about this organization at all (half the Google Scholar hits). The other "Scholarly" hits are the website of a "Cyber Community Centre promoting events on Vancouver Island"—hardly a scholarly source—and a dissertation that mentions NASCA's website as a source in a single sentence, and a book that does little more than describe one page on its website (currently ref 2).  The rest of the options in "Google Books" suffer from similar problems, only worse, since most of them provide little more than the name and address.  Of the news articles, it looks like most of them name NASCA's website as a source or quote a person connected with it—again, the single-sentence trivial mention.  There's a lot of them (and, again, some of the hits are about Nasca, Peru or otherwise unconnected), but I don't think you could build anything longer than a permastub from these sources:  You could pretty much say "it exists" and "____ was a director" and "they have a website" and that's about it.  Only the Vancouver Island website says anything more than that about them, and that's a pretty weak source.  I don't believe that this complies with WP:ORG.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm all for cobbling together an article from single sentence sources. Sometimes, a reliable source is only good for three or four words in a Wikipedia article and you use what you have. The problem here is that the sources mostly say the same thing, so there isn't enought to put meat on the bone. Lifestyles Organization is the parent company of NASCA International. You might want to try developing an article on Lifestyles Organization as there likely will be more reliable source material for that than for NASCA International by itself. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2010 (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.