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. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The International Association of Media and History

The International Association of Media and History (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View log)

Declined speedy, non notable organisation Jenuk1985 |  Talk 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'm getting some hits and (trivial) mentions by searching "International Association of Media and History" and "IAMHIST". I suspect that someone closer to the field could come up with some (perhaps offline) sources to establish notability, as this seems to be a rather influential organization that publishes a quarterly journal, at least one book and hosts an annual international conference. —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep with haste as the organization is most definitely notable, being quoted in multile books and publications, and being instrumental in determining the future of television as a medium. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep but try to find some more references; it's relatively borderline. Just possibly, combine with the journal. DGG ( talk) 05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

some material seems to have just been added, & I think its enough to be no longer borderline. DGG ( talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt who once more proved that WP:BEFORE should be heeded before nominating an article and expanded the article with multiple reliable sources. An organisation with half a dozen sources covering it, notable members and publishing notable journals and books? I'd say they are notable. So Why 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not entirely sure you are assuming good faith by suggesting I didn't read WP:BEFORE before nominating. Jenuk1985 |  Talk 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I am not suggesting that you did not read it, I am suggesting that you did not heed it. While I assume good faith (and one could very easily claim that you don't by implying that I don't), I think WP:BEFORE is pretty clear that problems such as missing notability concerns should be noted using tags like {{ notability}} before bringing it to deletion. I can and will not assume that you were just too "lazy" to do the improvement that MichaelQSchmidt has proven possible above or that you have made no attempt to fix the article through editing. That would indeed be an assumption of bad faith. But it's no assumption of bad faith to say that you did not heed WP:BEFORE, for example the "tag the article for its problems first"-part; the article history is proof that you didn't (because your only edits to the article where the speedy and the AFD tags). Regards So Why 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This appears to be a significant academic society, publihsing an academic journal. If appearacnes are correct it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep As above. It seems to be a notable organization. http://www.amazon.com/Historian-Television-History/dp/1860205860 There is a book published about it. Dream Focus 12:01, 19 April 2009 (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.