Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of Vertebrate Paleontology


 * 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   keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. reason was "Only primary sources are used and this has been so for over four years. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42." Fiddle  Faddle  16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's not fully fixed, but I've put in a few references. It's obviously notable, it needs to be fixed, not deleted.  XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom has failed to do a WP:BEFORE check -- plenty of reliable sources exist for this long-standing society. It is listed in the reference book "Scientific, Technical, and Related Societies of the United States," for example. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs cleanup but with sources like available that should be entirely possible. Academic societies in general are hard to source well (see a discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)) but this one seems better than many in the sources that exist for it. There are also many web pointers to it from various science museums etc. which aren't much help as actual sources but do convince me that this is a legitimate and well respected organization, well known to those who work in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2014 (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.