Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal seekers 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 delete as non-notable organization. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal seekers society

Paranormal seekers society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Proposed deletion was removed by anon without a reason. The organization is rather minor and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Scores a solid three Google hits- one is a myspace, one is their website, one is the wiki article. Unverifiable. Wafulz 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG. A very non-notable and new (formed in 2005) organization. Their website is filled with self-admittance of non-notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Frédérick Lacasse 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: I'm getting rather concerned that Wikipedia editors/policies are increasingly using very US-centric measures for notability, verifiability, inclusion etc. For example, using online presence alone as a guide for notability/verifiability for groups operating countries where local media/communities have a low online presence, or expecting US scale recognition from entities in countries with a fraction of America's population (this is in general, not specifically to this entry). perfectblue 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't really true- the organization is from the UK, which is hardly a backwater country without the internet. If it were a 1970s military faction in Uganda, then maybe Google wouldn't be the best idea, but seeing as this is a society created in 2005 in a relatively wealthy and advanced nation, Google is a pretty safe bet. Also I'm not American, if that helps any. --Wafulz 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, and not necessarily in respect to this entry, most local newspapers and news-station in the UK don't have the online archives that US papers do, and because there are fewer of them to begin with the odds of finding one with the information that you want online are lower too. Equally, UK societies, groups and museums etc tend to be more local and online less than US ones (partly because they don't need to attract tourists etc from so far away). The UK isn't backwards by any means, it's just less online than the US and smaller than the US so US standards are not always appropriate (this counts much more for other countries, which are online far less than the US and UK, or which produce English language sites as an afterthought to their sites in their own languages). perfectblue 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The article doesnt make any claims of notability and there are not any sources used in the aritcle. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:19, 13 December 2006 (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.