Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeological Society of Slovenia

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 March 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. This seems to be going nowhere. A quick search revealed some more sources so it is possible to improve the article. Closing now. Tone 09:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Society of Slovenia

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

Deprodded by Eleassar. The article's subject fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are absolutely no citations indicating this entity has been significantly covered in multiple secondary sources, and a very cursory Google search of the exact name produces Wiki-mirrors for me. If there are Slovenian media sources regarding the organization, the article creators are encouraged to add them. If not, this is presumed to be a non-notable organization that does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the society's activities are regularly reported by national media, especially the award ceremonies ([1], [2]), then there is a mention of symposium on bronze age in a scientific monograph published by the national academy ([3]), proving that the society is an important organizer of archaeology in Slovenia. The text in this Wikipedia article was previously published on the national portal Culture.si ([4]) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Concern: Valid links are great. As I had mentioned this article needs them added to pass GNG. But your last comment here is extremely concerning, that the entire text of this article was previously published elsewhere, as that strikes me as a copyright violation. That Culture.si page seems to follow Wikipedia's standard format so I would have presumed that it was a mirror site. Yerpo, can you confirm which website this text appeared on first (preferably with some evidence)? I'm seeing the Wiki article was created on April 10, 2011 whereas the first snapshot of Culture.si taken by the Wayback Machine is September 23, 2011...but of course the Wayback Machine is far from infallible. -Markeer 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markeer: why is it concerning? As I said, the text is published under a Wikipedia-compatible license. What's more, Culture.si terms of use expressly encourage copying to Wikipedia. There is only a matter of attribution, which, admittedly, was lacking until now. But yes, the Culture.si version was published earlier, according to that wiki's history. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to anyone who wants to look for sources to know the name of this society in Slovenian. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that it seems to be Slovensko arheološko društvo. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP is often dubious as to the notability of academic societies. One of the difficulties is that the main source of information is usually an internal one. I would suggest that this one is WP-notable, as it is the national society in its field, publishing an academic journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 8 March 2016 (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.