Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision[edit]
- International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
The article was originally prodded a few weeks ago and I was the deleting admin. A few days ago, a user Dontaskme asked why it was deleted. After reviewing it, I had my doubts to the initial prod, so I restored the article and decided to send it to AfD. The original prod stated "Notability, website seems to indicate small size". The article has been in existance for more than a year, and I would like to see a community consensus on this AfD. Nishkid64 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a notable genuine society. Article needs to be tidied, expanded, and categorised. scope_creep 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Genuine yes. Notable? It has 406 members. So do most Everquest guilds. Undecided, but what is the basis for notability?Obina 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's a medical organization that is notable because of what it does, not because of the size of its membership. I doubt any Everquest guilds do something as vital to human sight as setting the standards for ophthalmalogical (or however that's spelled) equipment. My vote is Keep - clearly important medical organization. --Charlene 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate keep. ISCEV sets standards for various forms of ERG, EOG, and VEP. -AED 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep it may be obscure but it is worthy of an entry. I would however like it to be tidied up a bit. I was disappointed there was no definition or link for "electrophysiological" --Mike 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Robovski 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No surprise that I vote for keeping since I am the one who asked Nishkid64 to restore the article. Most reasons have already been mentioned. I believe size is not a good criterion for notability (quite a few small town would loose their article in Wikipedia if 500 members/citizens was the lower limit). I think the society does work that is very relevant and thus notable. Their journal actually ranks relatively high in the ophthalmology section of the Science Citation Index. The article is clearly not perfect (yet), but worth being kept. --Dontaskme 20:37, 13 November 2006 (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.