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. Per WP:N, multiple sources is preferred. I'll be more than happy to restore the article if a second bit of external WP:RS coverage is located. — Scientizzle 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Research Association of Ireland[edit]

This article relies on one reference and seems to be a potential a7inc but unsure and would like a second/third opinion. If re-written or organized correctly, this could become a legit article but as it stands now it is not. So I've placed it on AFD. Katanada (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it's a borderline speedy. Google (plus Books, Scholar, and News) turns up no reliable secondary sources except perhaps for this, which I'm not going to pay to see in its entirety but which seems to be a feature article that was written on a slow news day. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in The People that Deor found is probably enough to prove notability. The fact that the organization deals with imaginary things is not enough to delete the article. I realize that the full text of the article is behind a pay-wall, but enough of it is shown to count as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The People is a tabloid which carries lots of celebrity gossip, but in this context it is probably a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But did they get government funding? If they did, that might indeed be notable. Deor (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per Deor. It could be salvaged, with a bit of work. Barely notable with that single source, though - Alison ^❤ 04:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Only sources are either its own web site or unreliable secondary sources. The 'GHOST OF A CHANCE!' link is just a stub. Artene50 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reliables sources on which to base a verifiable article do not seem to exist. The source mentioned above is from a tabloid which I do not think has the reputation for fact checking and accuracy required to form the basis of an article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deor/Eastmain's source seems adequate.--Habashia (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (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.