Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Companion Animal Studies

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 delete. Soft delete because discussion has been minimal. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Companion Animal Studies

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

Although certainly a noble cause, I haven't found sufficient sources to establish notability. Google News provided links each consisting of one mention here, here and here (requires payment for full article). Google Books also provided one mention here. Google Books also found this (scroll to the book with the title "Society for Companion Animal Studies"), a book published for the society with content from this article. I should also note that this is not the first time I have seen this. I've seen those authors publish other books with content from Wikipedia as shown here.

The best link I found was this, mentioning that the group was founded as Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond in 1979 but changed its name in 1982. However, I have found little results with "Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond" aside from one mention through a 1979 newspaper here. I found another small mention of the former name here. With a slightly positive note, I found what appears to be a detailed book here (scroll to the title "The powers of love"). Unfortunately, the snippet view never shows the relevant content. Additionally, I would be more than willing to improve the article if it weren't that I haven't found any significant content or significant sources. If I were to improve the article, it seems the best option would be a stub with the former name and dates. However, the concern of few news sources would remain. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, besides its own claims for itself. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 September 2012 (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.