- 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- CESRA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bon courage (talk · contribs) prodded this with:
Reliant on itself for sourcing.
All current references are to CESRA or directory to conference proceedings linked to CESRA; I have not attempted to assess notability on my own. This doesn't mean that CESRA fails notability since WP:NEXIST, but deprodder Headbomb (talk · contribs) committed the WP:OLDSUBJECT fallacy: not a reason to delete, this is a 50+ y.o. professional associaton, obviously notable
.
About 90% of this page was authored by page creator Sjyu1988 (talk · contribs), and the majority of edits by that user are to this article, with most of the rest being creations of redirects to towns and all remaining edits related to CESRA, including a deleted draft on the same topic, some non-free files, and these edits that got reverted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major and well-established astronomy organization and sponsor of multiple high profile conferences, proceedings, etc. This is a big time failure of WP:BEFORE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Headbomb: Please provide secondary sources that support notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this a recurring phenomenon on Wikipedia, where well-established modest groups just aren't treated in RS, so are not amenable to encyclopedic treatment? Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bon courage, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not our problem. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well indeed. Are there any independent "Histories of CESRA" or similar squirreled away somewhere? Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. "Show me secondary sources!" is not a valid argument for deleting a page for a clearly notable organization. If you can't be bothered to do the work, at least don't waste editors' time with pointless PRODs. Let's close this AfD, and work together on improving sources. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is you who needs to prove notability. None of the current sources do. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whom exactly are you referring to, when you say "you"? Is there a separate class of editors here who are tasked with supplying evidence, while the other class are sitting back, passively waiting for this evidence to materialize? This isn't Arbcom, and you are not heading a tribunal here. This is a joint effort by editors to improve the project. If you don't feel up to participating, at least respect the time and effort of those who do. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "You" are the people who wish for this article not to be deleted. The onus is on them. Cortador (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, if it's 'clearly notable' it would be easy to produce sources showing that. But the problem is - the lack of them, right? Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a major organization - secondary sources almost always exists for such type of organizations. Meets WP:NORG. 64.135.238.133 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Then produce them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One "keep" argument appears to be more like a personal attack, another is lacking in substance. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While CESRA no doubt is an established body that has facilitated a lot of academic and research activity, the organisation itself has attracted no significant coverage in independent sources that I can find (not even basic information, like how it was founded). It would be helpful if those saying this is clearly notable could show their working, because then I would be happy to change my !vote. Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]Delete: The research of scientists associated with CESRA is clearly notable, as proven by a high number of publications. However, that doesn't make CESRA itself notable. I did a search for articles about CESRA, and virtually nothing came up. I'm happy to change my vote if porven wrong, but as of now, the discussion is textbook But there must be sources! Maybe the CESRA article should be kept nevertheless, but that would require a major revision of Wikipedia's notability criteria, and this discussion isn't the place for that.Cortador (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do in fact think there would be a case for considering distinct notability standards for professional, academic and standards organisations. But this is another discussion. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See this [1] as a brief description. More to come. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See page 930 [2], and this, how they were an off-shoot of the other astronomy group and became official [3]. I think with that description and the literally hundreds of mentions and conference abstracts published over the last 50 yrs, notability can be established. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I think that's enough (just) for notability, even if the mentions in conference abstracts aren't. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - this is just enough to justify the article. I changed my vote accordingly.
- The 1972 one is authored by Fokker. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This gives further context: https://eas.unige.ch/newsletter/eas_newsletter-6.pdf Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find the basic information that tells me that it was formed in 1970 and held a joint meeting with JOSO in 1974 (Brandt & Mattig, p. 139) harv error: no target: CITEREFBrandtMattig (help), and not in sources by Kontar or Fokker. Unsurprisingly, it was in a book on astronomy organizations. Perhaps that's the sort of place to look. Zwaan 1974, p. 930 does flesh that out a bit, and this gets us to 1974, at least. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (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.