Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation Research 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Radiation Research Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NO evidence of notability, not even any sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep : Organization does seem to be notable and renowned. The issues are currently being fixed by the original editor, maybe because of the AfD request. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh god, the article has a completely different problem. It is copied from http://www.radres.org/?page=Governance and might, in its current form, qualify for speedy deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete - there is definitely a case of copying going on here - a CSD action is pending I suspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment re CSD - CSD was declined, with the following intriguing grounds "(declining csd - believe it or not, there is no explicit disclaimer of copyright on the website, which means db-copyvio isn't strictly speaking compatible with this article. That being said, if its afd'd, then we gain the bonus of deletion and deletion protection (such as it were). Let the afd play out.)". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A significant COI was confirmed in the process, though after the wave of deletions/edits etc made, I wouldn't say the article is significantly promotional in tone.
 * As I noted on the 16th, the status of the sources is sufficient for a delete in their own right. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - some very minimal edits have been made (more accurately people deleting bits) which has sort of formed some paraphrasing and breaking apart of the plagarism - the blurring of the case I imagine might be the reason the speedy delete is still pending rather than resolving one way or another. Nosebagbear (talk)


 * The references however are a delete in their own right - 5/6 are primary. The only suitably referenced bits refer to the original history section, which only goes up to 1953. The other non-RRS source just covers that members "attend the International Congress of Radiation Research (ICRR) meeting" (and is primary as it comes from the ICRR site). Surely notability can't be covered from a history section ending over 60 years ago and that they attend some conferences that aren't even theirs? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, and the COI concerns me. At best TNT, at worst lockdown. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:09, 16 April 2018 (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.