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 ( talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

International Geosynthetics Society

International Geosynthetics Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Fails WP:ORG and GNG. References are mostly primary. No independent coverage in mulitple reliable sources. According to the New Pages Patrol que, this page was previously deleted. Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm really struggling with this one, because my heart and head are in different places. My head agrees that the sources are all primary and the vast majority of the information is coming from the organisation itself. But my heart tells me that this is a symptom of the public's tendency to take infrastructure for granted; secondary sources write about things that are interesting, page-selling, not about things that are necessary. So far as I can make out, the IGS is a genuine learned society publishing a couple of journals in the portfolios of reputable publishers, and representing a subject that itself is notable (and has a WP article). It would be reasonable to merge information about the IGS into Geosynthetics, but at the moment it would unbalance that article because there's a lot of information in this one. I'm therefore leaning towards an objectively-insupportable weak-keep. Elemimele ( talk) 08:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The ICE references (the ICE supports one of their publications) seem independent to me. RomanSpa ( talk) 10:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. For the reasons cited by Elemimele. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I agree that too much leads back to the primary source and am reading around, refining the article, and inserting a more diverse range of sources. I think the non-profit organizations behind niche industries are relevant and notable and should be included on Wikipedia--but the problem is that many of these groups are not commonly in the news unless they are also lobbying organizations. Their members are in the news. (Many members of this group I find have Wikipedia articles. I'm working on a "Notable" section.) Their corporate members are in the news (and in Wikipedia articles). But the non-profits themselves, especially when they represent a field, are not widely covered outside of trade journals. Yet, these groups have an impact on society. Trying to find the balance. I very much appreciate the thoughts shared by reviewers. Methods of Escape ( talk) 22:20, 2 August 2021 (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.