Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Mycological Society (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 speedy keep as the nominator has struck their deletion rational and !voted keep. (non-admin closure).  " Pepper "  @

New York Mycological Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No secondary sources since 2011. Notability in question. Rhadow (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Rather a lot of mentions on Scholar, nicely spread over 50-odd years. I don't see how lack of sources from the last few years is an issue in that regard. Article needs some love but the material is there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well here's my take, Elmidae -- People said the same thing in 2006 when this article was last nominated for deletion. In the last eleven years, nobody cared enough to give it some love.  We aren't talking about no references for a few years; we're talking never. Now is the time. Rhadow (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but the fact that nobody has made use of the sources yet does not the negate their existence. "No one is interested enough to write it up" != "not notable". WP:NODEADLINE and all that jazz. I'm not an aficionado of amateur mycology myself, so I'm unlikely to do the job, but my assessment is that it is doable - which really is the question under consideration. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Elmidae, I just wanna argue. If the fact there are sources out there, but no one has bothered to dig them up is enough to keep an article, then no article should ever be deleted. And in the mean time, the whacko editors will write whatever original research they want, and say, "References? I was getting a round tuit."
 * I hope you are having as fine an evening as I. Rhadow (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I question your interpretation of notability. What gets deleted under that criterion is stuff for which no sources can be found - not for which demonstrably existing sources are not used. And unsourced statements have never been justifiable by that excuse. - Anyway, thanks to Power~enwiki for being more productive than either of us :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some references. It should pass WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Power~enwiki is my hero. Rhadow (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Elmidae mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 3 September 2017 (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.