Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weed Science Society of America

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weed Science Society of America

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

WITHDRAWN SNOW KEEP Non notable org. filled with red links, WP:SUSTAINED L3X1 (distant write) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure redlinks within an article do not constitute grounds for deletion. LadyofShalott 01:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that under WP:ATA, but redlinks are generally frowned upon, esp. when for such a list of non-notable people (NOTINHERIT). The reason I AfD'd the article is because after removing all the problem areas, you are left with one sentence about a non-notable organisation. Redlinks are the icing on the deletion cake, and since I am an inclusionist, the more reasons to delete, no matter how weak, the merrier. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought it was going to be some fringe pot-growing org. It's actually a serious scientific group that publishes three peer-reviewed journals and a frequently-cited "Herbicide Handbook". I would get rid of the list of honorary members--there doesn't seem to be anything notable about them.Glendoremus (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing society (founded 1956; added to article) that publishes three respected journals and several handbooks, has an EPA liaison, etc. Expansion rather than deletion seems warranted. Get rid of the list of honorary members though, that's really a gratuitous red-link fest with little to no chance of being blue'd.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional society producing three peer-reviewed journals and a book, the Herbicide Handbook. Meets WP:ORG. I agree that the "Honorary members" should be removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said previously, a professional society that produces three peer-reviewed journals and an important reference book. The list of redlinked honorary members is a reason for cleanup, not a reason to delete at all. LadyofShalott 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG met. WP:NEXIST is required reading if you're listing things at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator has inexplicably added WP:SUSTAINED to the nomination. Frankly, the idea that a society founded in 1956 could possibly fail WP:SUSTAINED is, to be polite, not supported by the sources that a WP:BEFORE search would have found. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a spate of articles mentioning this society in the press, Nom is withdrawing as Notability has been established, and will NAC as Snow Keep within 24 hours, unless anone else has anything else to add. L3X1 (distant write) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Exemplo347 L3X1 (distant write) 14:48, 16 March 2017 (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.