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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP rather plainly and has been so tagged since May 2012 with no improvements made to indicate that there is any notability of this society. jps (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I worked on this article a few months ago. No signs that this organisation has any serious mainstream coverage and thus fails WP:CORP/WP:FRINGE#Notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any notability here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find a few mentions, but nothing near enough to write an independently sourced article or indicate that the society have had any particular impact. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP! I find the SIS web site to be an excellent resource. I work as a geologist, so I know only too well that the gradualist approach cannot answer all questions. Many catastrophist related ideas have some merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As indicated by Doug: WP:USEFUL, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteMerit or usefulness to some people isn't relevant here, the issue is does it meet our criteria of notability. I've searched in the past hoping to improve this article and failed. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- An early reaction was that this was going to be about a bunch of cranks, WP:FRINGE applying, but some of their proceedings seem to relate to past events that are clearly not in that category. British Archaeological Reports publish a lot of stuff, but not the rubbish that one tends to get from the cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your policy based argument for keeping this article? When it comes to notability, it doesn't matter if they are a bunch of cranks or not as long as the article satisfies applicable notability guidelines. No one is proposing to delete this article merely because they are cranks. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.