473:
the article I referenced by McGowan does not exist, you do not intend to make a personal attack either, and you're surely not repeatedly calling me a liar. If the article by Boxer talks about Densa, however briefly, it may certainly be added to an article about Densa. If it is a humorous reference, that fits right in with the origin and spirit of Densa, which may in fact be a fictional organization, except in so far as people buy t-shirts or diplomas to display their "membership.' I do not understand your logic in claiming a right to remove it because it does not "cover the topic being discussed." It talks about Densa. It talks about Mensa. The fact that the main subject is Mensa does not allow you to delete it. There is no policy that says you may delete a reference that talks about something, just because it says more about something else. Because you think it does not, on its own, prove notability does not give you any right to delete it. If you nominate an article for deletion, your nomination fails, then you go and delete all the references and renominate it stating that it lacks references, I do not need to make any personal attack, because the actions speak for themselves. The fact that you do not subscribe to
Proquest is irrelevant. There is no Knowledge policy that says every reference must be available on every indexing service, and there is no policy that says the New York Times indexing service is perfect in its inclusion of things published many years ago. You should ask the New York Times why their index is imperfect, not me. I provided the full citation info from Proquest. Many libraries have the New York Times on microfilm, or allow search of online files. For issues before full computerization, the image may be captured but the optical character recognition or the indexing may be flawed. If it does not show up digitally, it might still show up on microfilm. This is far from the only puzzling indexing case. A while back I had 2 different Proquest subscriptions through different organizations, and some New York Times articles would show up in one Proquest search but not the other.
389:
the reference and in the next AFD you can note that it iI see the Boxer article as more than a "passing trivial reference." It is not good faith editing to remove a reference then complain there are no references. You also removed the McGowan New York Times article and denied that it exists. I just looked at it again. Try using
Proquest. Not every indexing system, even the newspaper's own, includes every article in a given publication.(to err is all too human). Whether you feel references are enough to prove notability or not, you are absolutely not entitled to go around removing them in preparation to launching another AFD. You might also try contacting the editor who added a reference (me) if you are unable to find it, rather than assuming I just made it up and deleting it. Did you look for the additional references someone cited in the previous AFD, to quote UncleG: "As pointed out above, the nominator, CA387, and Adrian_M._H. are making the error that Google Web is the be-all-and-end-all of looking for sources. In addition to the NYT articles, which (as pointed out) the NYT's own search tool finds quite happily, there are articles by The Colorado Springs Gazette ("Mensa sound too tough? Densa may be more your style", 1994-09-22), The Miami Herald ("Are you Mensa or a Densa?", Don Shoemaker, 1983-10-12), and The Syracuse Herald-Journal ("Densa: The club for people who dare to be dense", Maryln Schwartz, 1983-09-13). Please put more effort into looking for sources, especially when the citations hand their locations to you on a platter. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"
443:. I did NOT delete the references in "preparation for another AFD", and your accusation as such is completely absurd. It is not my job to hunt down people who added individual references to an article and ask them to verify if it is true. The article has sat dormant for a MONTH, since the last AFD, after which I clearly stated that I would re-AFD if no suitable references had been provided, and they were NOT provided and they ARE STILL NOT PROVIDED. All you've done is revert to an old version of the page with a bunch of references of questionable merit. I do not have to add the references, the people whop want to KEEP THE ARTICLE need to add them. Different people on Knowledge perform different tasks. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with removing a reference article that does not cover the topic being discussed. The Boxer article IS ABOUT MENSA, NOT DENSA. I have the article here in front of me and there are exactly two sentences that have to do with "Densa", they are put forth in a humorous light and they do not add a thing to the Knowledge article about Densa. The McGowan article does not exist, as far as I'm concerned. Why doesnt the New York Times have it's own article in it's own database? You can't expect people to come here and purchase proquest subscriptions to try and verify that these articles actually exist. This is not about Illuminati, is is about Densa.
497:
society for people who have an exceptionally high IQ, "Densa" is a group for people who have an exceptionally low IQ. This is what the word has always been intended to convey when ever I heard it used. Just because a person is not qualified for Mensa would not necessarily imply they would qualify for Densa. If some one belongs to Densa, the implication is they are exceptionally studpid. This is not true for someone whose IQ falls in the 97 percentile range. Please note that Densa is a low IQ society. People whose IQ fall in the 97 percentile range do not have a low IQ, and therefore would not qualify for Densa. I am trying to post this anonymously as I swore I would have nothing more to do with
Knowledge which in my opinion has too many editors with small minds, little knowledge, too much time on their hands. Not to mention too much hostility. Since Densa is a fictional society, I reverted the line that made reference to one particular individual who estimated how many members it might have had at some particular point in the past. If there were such a society, that estimate would most likely have been incorrect as only one in ten members eligible for Mensa actually join Mensa. I imagine the percentage of dunces to join Densa would be much lower, especially if their dues were as high as Mensa dues.
142:
124:
222:
367:, in that the sources provided do not establish notability of the subject. The group's homepage seems to be a personal Comcast customer page. I will soon renominate Densa for AFD unless Notability and Verifiability can be established. Please note by comments regarding the Boxer article above: it only provides a trivial passing mention and is therefore unsuitable to establish the basis of Notability.
93:
21:
152:
410:
which were reprinted in other Mensa newsletters, before the term became common in the general public. This was about the first time I read about it, in a campus newspaper. She said in the letter she has those 1974 issues. Would that she were a
Wikipedian. This is a promising area for research. Amyx provides further info at
496:
I joined Mensa in the 1980s. The word "Densa" is obviously a play on the word "Mensa" and the word "dense." I have heard the word used often both by
Mensans and non-Mensans. Contrary to what is stated in the article, when most people use it, they mean a group analgous to Mensa. Just as Mensa is a
388:
in your understanding of those guidelines. it is not legitimate for you to remove the references from an article, as long as they discuss the subject of the article. Nor is it legitimatee for you to remove references, then remove the reference section. That is a tactic which degrades articles. Leave
551:
I don't think Densa is for the exceptionally stupid. The term is used in Mensa South Africa for the non-2%-er spouses and friends of
Mensans who would sometimes join in Mensa-related activities which would otherwise have been for 2%-ers only. Such an event would then be a joint-event of Mensa and
472:
The reference to the
Illiminati was to show that a group does not even have to really exist to be notable. The Illuminati article is a fine one and hardly the thing one points to to justify keeping another poor article. I deny making any personal attack. I'm sure that when you repeatedly claim that
636:
It's a joke. A SIG (special interest group) is an informal sub-group within Mensa, where Mensa members sharing a certain common interest get together. There are dozens of them, but since they are groups within Mensa, they require Mensa membership to join. The Densa SIG is not meant, by the
Mensans
409:
the origin of Densa was "the August 1974 issue of BOMB (Boston & Outskirts Mensa
Bulletin), the newsletter of the Boston chapter of Mensa" of which she was the editor. John D. Coons, a contributor to that newsletter, started writing about Densa in that issue, and continued in following issues,
413:
with a reprint of some of the original Densa material. A substantial reference about a Mensa origin for Densa would be "The Origin of Densa" Copyright © 2005 Meredy Amyx, originally printed in the June-July 2005 issue of
Interloc, a publication of American Mensa, Ltd. Once the Densa meme was out,
322:
I bought and printed out the full Sarah Boxer article, which is the only article in existence that seems to mention this "organization". The article is about Mensa. "Densa" is only given a trivial mention. This article is not a legitimate source to establish WP:N and WP:V and I have deleted it.
344:
I think that since people seem to want this article, it's fair to let it be for now in hopes that those people will introduce acceptable references/citations (not trivial passing mentions like the Boxer article, which would be fine as an ADDITIONAL source but can't establish
243:
414:
various quizzes were written, websites created, etc. and it has continued to have a life of its own for the following 33 years. It may be hard to come up with a membership roster, or to find a meeting or the organization, but the same might be said about the
519:
Do you seriously think that people with a 3rd percentile IQ would be able to function, much less join any club? That is the level of severely handicapped. Densa is a spoof of Mensa, so who cares what the membership requirements would
333:
As I said in the second deletion discussion, the Sarah Boxer article is a humor piece, not intended to convey actual information about the organization. Hopefully someone will find something else; I haven't managed to as of yet.
534:
I just had to comment on the sheer lolz of the first post above. Someone from Mensa showing up to critique a parody in a truly "SERIOUS BIZNESS" manner and along the way whine about Wikipedians being "small-minded."
552:
Densa. On other occassions, when there is an exclusive Mensa activity, the spouses of those who can't attend would organise a get-together of their own on the same night, i.e. for members of Densa. --
58:
47:
570:
In Perth, Australia, the term was exclusively used (by Mensans) to refer to particularly stupid people, not just non-Mensans. (Although I haven't heard it for a few years now.)
439:
I strongly recommend that you desist from your accusations of bad faith. I'm tired of arguing with people over their interpretations of policy and I don't appreciate your
680:
198:
293:
695:
283:
700:
204:
690:
685:
675:
259:
611:"However, in contrast to the implied aims of Densa, one group - the Densa Special Interest Group (Densa SIG), in fact requires Mensa membership."
363:
The end of June is upon us and it looks like nobody has found any non-trivial, acceptable third-party references. The article currently fails
614:
If this is true, one must be both in the 98th percentile AND below it to be in this subsection of DENSA? Am I understanding this correctly?
174:
72:
621:
504:
250:
227:
165:
129:
592:
Meredy Amyx here. I just ran across my name mentioned above and signed on so I could respond. What do you want to know?
104:
444:
406:
Sadly, the source is too old to be handy on the internet, but according to "Meredy Amyx" in a letter of 5/15/2005
27:
625:
92:
411:
508:
597:
353:
as a primary source). If no quality primary sources can be added by the end of June, I'll relist at AFD.
110:
448:
368:
354:
324:
657:
642:
617:
593:
575:
525:
500:
20:
540:
258:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
173:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
157:
653:
638:
571:
557:
521:
536:
669:
440:
255:
474:
419:
390:
385:
381:
380:
Even if you feel a few sentences in a major national newspaper does not satisfy
364:
350:
346:
316:
312:
242:
221:
141:
123:
407:
553:
415:
335:
170:
147:
30:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
65:
43:
54:
68:
86:
15:
661:
652:
I will reformulate the article to make this point clearer.
646:
629:
601:
579:
561:
544:
529:
512:
477:
451:
422:
393:
371:
357:
338:
327:
254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
169:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
203:This article has not yet received a rating on the
637:who formed it, to be a serious organisation.
8:
90:
418:another fictional group (or is it real?).
216:
118:
31:
218:
120:
681:Unknown-importance psychology articles
7:
696:Low-importance organization articles
248:This article is within the scope of
163:This article is within the scope of
268:Knowledge:WikiProject Organizations
109:It is of interest to the following
701:WikiProject Organizations articles
271:Template:WikiProject Organizations
14:
691:Start-Class organization articles
241:
220:
183:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
150:
140:
122:
91:
19:
686:WikiProject Psychology articles
676:Start-Class psychology articles
288:This article has been rated as
186:Template:WikiProject Psychology
26:This article was nominated for
1:
545:11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
262:and see a list of open tasks.
177:and see a list of open tasks.
580:12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
562:17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
513:20:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
717:
530:20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
294:project's importance scale
205:project's importance scale
630:12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
607:Can someone explain this?
602:19:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
478:20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
452:20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
423:20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
394:19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
372:16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
287:
251:WikiProject Organizations
236:
202:
135:
117:
662:17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
647:17:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
358:13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
339:15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
328:15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
166:WikiProject Psychology
99:This article is rated
274:organization articles
35:Deletion discussions:
445:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
311:This article fails
189:psychology articles
492:Densa = Definition
105:content assessment
620:comment added by
515:
503:comment added by
308:
307:
304:
303:
300:
299:
215:
214:
211:
210:
158:Psychology portal
85:
84:
81:
80:
708:
632:
498:
441:personal attacks
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
245:
238:
237:
232:
224:
217:
191:
190:
187:
184:
181:
160:
155:
154:
153:
144:
137:
136:
126:
119:
102:
96:
95:
87:
32:
23:
16:
716:
715:
711:
710:
709:
707:
706:
705:
666:
665:
615:
609:
590:
494:
320:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
230:
188:
185:
182:
179:
178:
156:
151:
149:
103:on Knowledge's
100:
12:
11:
5:
714:
712:
704:
703:
698:
693:
688:
683:
678:
668:
667:
650:
649:
622:71.229.126.145
608:
605:
589:
588:Densa = Origin
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
565:
564:
549:
548:
547:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
399:
398:
397:
396:
375:
374:
342:
341:
319:
309:
306:
305:
302:
301:
298:
297:
290:Low-importance
286:
280:
279:
277:
260:the discussion
246:
234:
233:
231:Low‑importance
225:
213:
212:
209:
208:
201:
195:
194:
192:
175:the discussion
162:
161:
145:
133:
132:
127:
115:
114:
108:
97:
83:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
62:
51:
42:No consensus,
37:
36:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
713:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
679:
677:
674:
673:
671:
664:
663:
659:
655:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
633:
631:
627:
623:
619:
612:
606:
604:
603:
599:
595:
587:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
563:
559:
555:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
518:
517:
516:
514:
510:
506:
505:66.229.61.232
502:
491:
479:
476:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
424:
421:
417:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
395:
392:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
340:
337:
332:
331:
330:
329:
326:
318:
314:
310:
295:
291:
285:
282:
281:
278:
265:Organizations
261:
257:
256:Organizations
253:
252:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
229:
228:Organizations
226:
223:
219:
206:
200:
197:
196:
193:
176:
172:
168:
167:
159:
148:
146:
143:
139:
138:
134:
131:
128:
125:
121:
116:
112:
106:
98:
94:
89:
88:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60:
56:
52:
49:
45:
41:
40:
39:
38:
34:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
651:
613:
610:
591:
495:
449:The Parsnip!
369:The Parsnip!
355:The Parsnip!
343:
325:The Parsnip!
321:
289:
249:
164:
111:WikiProjects
616:—Preceding
499:—Preceding
101:Start-class
670:Categories
654:SchnitteUK
639:SchnitteUK
594:MeredyAmyx
572:Mitch Ames
522:Flunkerton
416:Illuminati
180:Psychology
171:Psychology
130:Psychology
73:discussion
59:discussion
57:2007, see
48:discussion
46:2007, see
537:GenkiNeko
618:unsigned
501:unsigned
66:10 April
28:deletion
292:on the
44:28 June
475:Edison
420:Edison
391:Edison
107:scale.
71:, see
64:Keep,
55:18 May
53:Keep,
554:leuce
520:be?--
336:CA387
658:talk
643:talk
626:talk
598:talk
576:talk
558:talk
541:talk
526:talk
509:talk
386:WP:V
382:WP:N
365:WP:N
351:WP:V
349:and
347:WP:N
317:WP:V
315:and
313:WP:N
69:2007
384:or
284:Low
199:???
672::
660:)
645:)
628:)
600:)
578:)
560:)
543:)
535:--
528:)
511:)
447:.
334:--
656:(
641:(
624:(
596:(
574:(
556:(
539:(
524:(
507:(
296:.
207:.
113::
75:.
61:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
