Talk:Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society

Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I believe your move infringes WP:NPOSSIBLE; could you please clarify or undo the move. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, please see WP:DRAFTIFY, where it meets all 3 of the first 3 requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 I agree that the article meets criteria 1a and 3a but I fail to see how it meets criterion 2. Could you please restore the move or else indicate which of the subcriteria 2a,2b,2c,2d applies. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, seriously? It clearly does not meet 2a, being entirely unsourced with reliable, independent sources. In addition, just because something exists does not make it notable. There is no indication this passes WP:GNG. In fact, I've come on several other articles you've created which fall into this same issue. Please provide sourcing from independent reliable sources as references to your article creations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 subcriterion 2a reads: It does not meet WP:STUB; or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD; or it meets any speedy deletion criterion. Could you please be more specific as to which of these three cases you think applies to the present article? And you still haven't addressed my contention that your move infringes WP:NPOSSIBLE. Furthermore, I believe that you're infring WP:DRAFTIFY, where it says that "It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." Feel free to nominate this article for deletion after you restore it to mainspace. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, npossible deals with determining notability. By draftifying, I'm acknowledging that there is a possibility, if not probability, of notability. But that the article in its current state isn't fit for mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 You're misinterpreting WP:NPOSSIBLE. As a sign of good will, I've included a new paragraph about the history of this society, founded nearly seventy years ago, including citations to three scholarly articles. Could you please move it back to mainspace. fgnievinski (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted this move. The society is clearly notable, and there is zero reason for exclusion from mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)