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 Userfy. Going to move this to Alpha Centauri 777's userspace as User:Alpha Centauri 777/Australian Transhumanist Association Inc., and tag the resulting redirect for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R2. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Transhumanist Association Inc.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:NORG unsourced article for an organisation formed in 2018 Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No suggestion in deletion nomination of any consideration how this fits with coverage of Transhumanism in wikipedia. Would it be the nominator's contention that this should be covered in the main Transhumanism article? Maybe it was split out of there due to size. What alternative to deletion would be better? Is there a list of transhumanism related organizations to which this should be merged, instead, so that it is covered better in context. Or should such a list be started now. Keeping is one good option if no one wants to figure anything out, and it would reduce demand for attention of editors here. --Doncram (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of every organisation that exists. We don't have to redirect but if really it is useful why not redirect to transhumanism. I honestly don't understand why just because an article has been created regardless of notability there has to be an alternative to deltion. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: in light of the comment below do you really think that this article should be kept as an option? It doesn't matter how this article fits in with any subject. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this organisation comes anywhere near meeting GNG. I don't understand what you are trying to suggest. This article is totally unsourced and for good reason it has just been created and one of the first things that the creator did was to write a Wikipedia page about his organisation. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I created the page because I created the association. I noted that in my user page as Wikipedia told me to and this is why there is no sources to the page, because it's first-hand knowledge. I'm sorry if I've done something wrong, but I would prefer if the page wasn't deleted. Perhaps merged but why can't it just stay up??? - User, Alpha Centauri 777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Centauri 777 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Alpha Centauri 777 the reason there needs to be sources is for verifiability. Readers and other editors need to be able to confirm that what is said in the article is true, without emailing the person that wrote it. Since the association was only started very recently, it may well be that there hasn't been enough independent coverage of it so far to demonstrate that it's notable in encyclopedic terms. I'd suggest waiting until that coverage comes in before an article gets written. That said, well done on how you've written and formatted it, referencing notwithstanding. Not always an easy thing to do when you're new to editing. If you decide to stay and edit in other areas, let me know if I can help. Mortee (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT the below, I'd be OK with userfying. Creating articles about yourself and your own enterprises tends to be discouraged, but having the wikitext of a first article available might be helpful for someone as they go into editing other things. Mortee (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. The article fails WP:GNG and can't stay in mainspace, but it reads well and IMO it would be better to store it where it can be easily improved rather than having to go through WP:UNDELETE. Narky Blert (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy — No mentions of the organization. Didn't see any sampling a few "Media" on the page, just the general topic. Read the essay suggested in the above box, Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Also read WP:USERFY and reliable source (RS). You can also edit other transhumanism articles or any article. You just can't add "first-hand knowledge". As a beginner, keep this in mind, "I can't add anything without an RS that supports the text." And also add the source. There are tools to make it easy to cite references. StrayBolt (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a problem with it being userfied but without a redirect as there are no sources whatsoever. That said as the creator is also the founder of the organisation and has a declared WP:COI it should not be moved back into mainspace without going through draft submission as per WP:AFC. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone is OK with Userfy this can be closed I think now. As I am not withdrawing I think it would be better if someone else closed but as a page mover I can do the moves afterwards. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2018 (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.