Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Skeptics Society

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. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Skeptics Society

Irish Skeptics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has received independent coverage in independent sources:

• Sceptics alarmed by facile beliefs - The Irish Times, Thu Oct 30, 2003 Struck link to this AfD page Kraxler (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• $1m challenge for proof of paranormal event - The Irish Times, Thu September 23, 2004
• space cadet - Sunday Independent (Ireland), 25 Nov 2007
• Health cover could reduce suicide levels - Sunday Independent (Ireland), 6 November 2005
• Experts call for end to alternative health cover - Sunday Independent (Ireland), 4 September 2005

Autarch (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • None of those sources writes about the Irish Skeptics Society. They just let somebody from the Irish Skeptics Society tell his story. The Banner talk 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you did not spot the false link, shows that you did not even bother to read the sources, The Banner. Kraxler (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love the fact that you immediately assume bad faith instead of assuming that I perhaps had looked at the sources given in the article. The Banner talk 00:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to presume anything that is proven. The above intended, and now below correctly given, link is not in the article. You didn't bother to read any additional evidence, especially presented here at the AfD discussion. That's a fact. Not a presumption. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The struck out link was a mistake - it should have been this link: Skeptics alarmed by facile beliefs. It was probably due to a mistake in copying the URL and lack of proofreading on my part. My apologies to all.Autarch (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was a mistake, and striking it was intended to call your attention to it. Thanks for adding the correct link. It is probably the most in-depth peice on the society, by the way, and goes a long way towards establishing notability. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Does not have a lot of great coverage out there but does have enough to fly. Added 2 of the above refs to the article in a quick way. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (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.