Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midlands Ghost Research 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 merge to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. SarahStierch (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Ghost Research Society

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

This is a very minor society that fails WP:CORP. jps (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. The citations are to a single source, Coventry Evening Telegraph, all from the same year 2005 (except one small article in Nottingham Evening Post). Basically two sources from 2005. A quick search didn't find much but maybe there is more offline. The existing sources are enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia with redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent subject. insufficient independent notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. Fails WP:CORP with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not utterly convinced that this is the absolutely correct target, but I don't see a better one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The infobox says 7 staff, but it is improbable that these are employees: 7 members is more likely. If so, it is clearly NN and we should not even redirect to a larger body of which they (or one of them) may have become a member. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the rules about smaller organizations being non-notable. The sources seem sufficient enough to justify a redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (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.