Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association for Greek Philosophy
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus with leave to
]International Association for Greek Philosophy
- International Association for Greek Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As has been discussed in the past, a website is not enough to justify notability. A google search for this association yields three results, with the first two overlapping. The society does not seem to have any notability beyond its website and a mention on another "link" gathering site. There are three more publications on other sites, but nothing goes past the first page. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to apologize for the stubby state of this article as created. I have since expanded it a little. I suppose I have been getting complacent. This organization is responsible for numerous publications, and is located in the birthplace of philosophy. It is an international organization and considered to be a very strong organization insofar as the world of philosophy is concerned. A google scholar search revealed 46 results. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing your nomination?Greg Bard 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No !vote, but how many of those 46 are (mostly self-reported) author affiliations? Some of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scholar search shows papers, but many places are papers who have been published by the IAGP, members of the IAGP, or a citation. I am not sure of the voracity of this company. There seems to be one paper that appears in most, and some are self-reported. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you trying to say "veracity" rather than "voracity"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Veracity, not voracity. Sorry. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scholar search shows papers, but many places are papers who have been published by the IAGP, members of the IAGP, or a citation. I am not sure of the voracity of this company. There seems to be one paper that appears in most, and some are self-reported. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No !vote, but how many of those 46 are (mostly self-reported) author affiliations? Some of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to apologize for the stubby state of this article as created. I have since expanded it a little. I suppose I have been getting complacent. This organization is responsible for numerous publications, and is located in the birthplace of philosophy. It is an international organization and considered to be a very strong organization insofar as the world of philosophy is concerned. A google scholar search revealed 46 results. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing your nomination?Greg Bard 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (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.