Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Pathological 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present in the discussion. North America1000 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New York Pathological Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It exists and is long-standing, but I could not find enough to verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure - Considering this is an organization from 1844, oftentimes it can be found notable if archived and offline sources can be found. The best my searches found was a few Books, Newspapers Archive and one mention. Considering you're in New York, would you like to comment?  SwisterTwister   talk  18:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep almost certainly a notable historical society. Third party sources are needed, but they should be available--early US medical societies have a substantial secondary literature.  The first part, of course is a copypaste, but not copyvio since it's old enough to be securely PD-US,. It is not however acceptable style to use a direct quotation of that sort for the major part of an article--the place for such material is Wikisource. It therefore needs to be rewritten.And so information about the society since 1876 needs to be added.   DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per DGG's rationale, and also given the wide range of references to its journal and meetings that can be seen in a GScholar search, indicating the actual significance of the organization. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, per above - seems like a plausible way of improving the article, someone would have to actually do it though. Artw (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination per all the excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (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.