Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasmanian UFO Investigation Centre


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tasmanian UFO Investigation Centre

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable small organization. There are no independent reliable sources on it and I have been unable to find any in searching. Philosophus T 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No notability hinted in the article. Not far from CSD A3. Delete. --Pjacobi 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for complete lack of assertion of notability, and probable lack of notability in and of itself. Someguy1221 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced and no sources appear to be available through Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and ors. Notability hasn't been established for the entity. Thewinchester (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They're getting too close to the truth. Quick, Delete!  Lankiveil 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources and almost no content. I've merged the few useful facts to Australian ufology. John Vandenberg 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability hasn't been established for the entity. Seem like a random entry that needs a lot of work. Australian ufology covers this data very well. TimMU 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No proof of notability.  Also I've lived in Tasmania all my life and never heard of it. -- Chuq (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the comments from John Vandenberg and TimMU at least acknowledge that there is a subject . further comment somewhere else later. SatuSuro 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you change your comment hours later, it makes it hard for me to respond. We did do research - the important parts of the nomination are the independent and reliable requirements, not the sources part. This appears to be just one of the thousands of non-notable pseudoscience organizations. --Philosophus T 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you change your comment hours later, it makes it hard for me to respond. We did do research - the important parts of the nomination are the independent and reliable requirements, not the sources part. This appears to be just one of the thousands of non-notable pseudoscience organizations. --Philosophus T 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No proper secondary sources, therefore not notable. Needs lots of work. Does it even qualify as a stub? Assize 10:34, 8 May 2007 (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.