Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of Radiographers


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn (nominator closing). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Society of Radiographers

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

Fails WP:ORG; the few bits of news coverage found are not significant nor substantial. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to better existing article Society of Radiographers. I would add that important professional bodies are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Doh, I checked Google and didn't even check here to see if there was an existing article. I've updated this AfD to that article and redirected the other. I'm still not seeing anything to show notability for the society in the second article, even if it has more info...its all still just stuff from the organization site. As per the guidelines, being a national professional body does not equal automatica notability. They must still be "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and said coverage must be substantial. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable as an important professional body. A quick search shows that this body is covered by plenty of reliable sources to easily meet WP:ORG. The actual page is deficient in sources but we improve such articles not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * strong keep- this org represents 90% of radiographers in the UK, and some in other countries. If this was a US org, it wouldn't be here at AfD. Plenty of WP:RS for them .Sticky Parkin 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would have been. Why do people feel the need to imply some stupid country bias instead of just accepting the nomination at face value. Is some good faith that damn hard to have, or does everyone from other countries have some complex about Wikipedia? Thanks, at least, for introducing me to the Google UK news search. I'll find it very useful for some other UK articles I work on. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 September 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.