Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Transhumanist Association (2nd nomination)

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. Good sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Transhumanist Association

World Transhumanist Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not assert notability per WP:ORG. All sources are self-published.Withdrawing nom, keep due to additional references. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No GNews hits, no Google hits except from affiliated websites. Of course, this just means resistance is futile and I will be assimiliated. Keep in light of newer refs. I for one welcome our new cyborg overlords. ObtuseAngle 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per previous discussion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/World Transhumanist Association). They have an annual conference, peer reviewed journal, and appear to be active with well-defined goals. Could certainly use some fleshing out, though. Eldereft 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All internal stuff and no indications that they have made a dent on the world. The high school glee club can meet at Denny's, but that doesn't make it a notable organization. We need some third parties noticing and discussing them. That's lacking now. Utgard Loki 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - This article did not fulfill WP:V in 2004, and it should only be kept now if reliable sources are actually provided to meet WP:ATT. --Tikiwont 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Aelffin for providing potential references even though it is not obvious which ones actually tell something substantial about the organisation WTA. In other words, we already have articles on Transhumanism which refers in a section to World Transhumanist Association as well as for the leading protagonists and journals etc. and many of the sources just reflect this interwovenness. A legitimate starting point for the article about the organisation would be references that do more than reporting standard WTA press info, but report e.g. specifically on the conference. I've added a source that I found myself and authorise the closing admin to convert my vote into keep if more pertintent citations are included in the article.--Tikiwont 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bare minimum research shows why. Do a Google search and you’ll find the following in the first three pages of results alone:

Village Voice [1]

Daily Herald [2]

Worldwatch Institute [3]

Deseret News [4]

Society for Social Studies of Science [5]

RJASE1, can’t you at least consult a search engine before nominating an AfD? C’mon people, do a little research already. Same goes for the editors who wrote the article. Aelffin 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Articles by the Village Voice, The Daily Herald, and the Deseret News certainly make this a notable subject (not to say the others aren't; I'm just not as informed about those publications). A minor rewrite to incorporate these sources into the page and to replace buzzwords would turn this into a valuable article. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• More references...

The Guardian [6]

Utne Reader [7]

Reason Magazine [8]

Nashua Telegraph [9]

National Catholic Weekly [10]

Raider News [11]

Friends of Earth [12]

Thomas More Institute [13]

TCS Daily [14]

McGill Daily [15]

CY Daily [16]

New York Inquirer [17]

Macomb Daily [18]

ThisMagazine [19]

Illinois Federation for the Right to Life Daily News [20]

The Quaker Economist [21]

Skeptical News [22]

Action Bioscience [23]

Council for Secular Humanism [24]

The Standard [25]

Radio Netherlands [26]

The New Atlantis [27]

Aelffin 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep given above references. Page needs a LOT of work though --Hobit 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP. I've added most of the above references to the article. --Loremaster 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. That's a lot of references. The article needs improvement, obviously, but deletion is no longer appropriate per WP guidelines. -- Black Falcon 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThere is no doubt that its notable, and with V sources. There are additionally a considerable number of related organizations , and a number of people connected with it, with articles in WP but that are much less N, and could usefully be redirected into this one. From checking their home pages, I think that this is probably the central one. I refrain from saying what I personally think of the movement. DGG 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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.