- 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadian Cartographic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Canadian Remote Sensing Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two articles about organizations, making no claim to passing WP:NORG. As written, both articles literally just state that the organizations exist, and source their existence to their own self-published websites about themselves with no evidence whatsoever of any reliable source coverage about them to establish their significance. But simply being verifiable as existing is not how an organization gets a Wikipedia article -- to earn inclusion here, an organization needs to pass WP:ORGDEPTH on coverage about it in media. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep as a learned society they are both notable and they both publish one or multiple academic journals. Not a great situation with sources but we are more lenient with academics (which I presume extends to academic societies). --hroest 19:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had the impression that WP:ORG gives a break for national scholarly societies, but now I can only source this: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Maybe it's time to expand the org. notability guideline, otherwise 90% of existing articles in Category:Learned societies will have to go. I also found this related excerpt in WP:NACADEMIC: "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." fgnievinski (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was also going to mention the academic journals published by those societies. The journals pass WP:NJOURNALS since they have impact factors (criterion 1.c). But then I learned about WP:INHERITORG, which backfired. So maybe the articles about the societies should be merged into the articles about the respective journals? Again, I still think it'd be better to expand WP:ORG so that it reflects the usual lenience towards scholarly societies, especially the ones with national scope. Otherwise, I expect mass incineration in Category:Learned societies. fgnievinski (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fgnievinski I would support an expansion of WP:ORG mainly since it would reflect current practice. --hroest 14:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- hroest thank you, I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Proposal: learned societies. fgnievinski (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2021 (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.