Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Geological Society of Sri Lanka

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Whether or not to move to main I will leave to the discretion of participants. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Geological Society of Sri Lanka


Repeatedly resubmitted, never going to be notable, and therefore is just repeatedly wasting time at AFC Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Academic and professional organizations often have a difficult time here on Wikipedia because, by their very nature, they tend to be of interest only to people in their fields.  And yet, we have plenty of "Geological Society of ..." articles here.  And the Sri Lankan society has been around for more than thirty years, so it's not a "fly by night" operation.  More to the point, this listing at Google Scholar shows that articles in the Society's Journal and its Proceedings are being cited by academics outside of the Society.  Not a whole lot of times, but enough to show that there is international recognition of the work being produced by the Society.  What the drafter really needs to do is pattern the draft after several of the existing "Geological Society of ..." articles to bring it more in line with what is expected of these articles.  And with a 35-year history, this is something that almost certainly can be done.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Mainspace. The approval standards for AfC are too tough sometimes. This is a professional organization with a journal. Having coverage of such organizations is appropriate and expected in a proper encyclopedia. User:NewYorkActuary will you also endorse the move to mainspace? Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no ... I can't endorse that move while the draft is in its current form because, although I think the arguments I raised are sufficient to justify keeping the draft, I don't think they would be sufficient for keeping the article at an AfD discussion. And I appreciate the frustration that must have led to this nomination in the first place -- the drafter has been hitting the re-submit button without making any real attempt to improve the draft.  But that's a discussion that might be best held with the drafter -- and this might the right time and place for that discussion.   Why not make some effort to improve the draft?  There are some things that could easily be added.  How about letting the reader know how many people belong to the Society and what qualifications they needed to show before becoming members?  Who is the current president of the Society?  I understand that each annual conference has a theme.  Why not create a section -- with a table -- showing the annual themes for as far back as you can get the information?  And what about their peer-reviewed journal?  Is it web-only or is there a print edition?  If the latter, who actually publishes it?  And either way, who is the current editor?  What's the ISSN number?  I also understand that the Society has published about a dozen books.  We wouldn't think of writing a biography of an author without including a list of books they've written -- why not do the same thing here? I can't imagine that adding this detail would take more than a day or so.  And including that detail would lead to an article that no one would think of nominating for deletion.  So, why not do it, Sanjeewa?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"never going to be notable" and that is not a valid reason to delete.Egaoblai (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep and publish to mainspace The subject is quite notable, a professional organisation with a journal. I don't see how this is
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.