444:
not notable by any common sense standard. notability is used here in a meaningless way, and i think it's time to start insisting that it means significance or importance, and this is neither. . If we need a specific provision for this, it's NOT TABLOID, by which among other things I mean NOT CUTE. Encyclopedias and newspapers have different standards of what's worth including. Another example to show why the best thing to do with the current contents of WP:N is delete and start over based on some actual principles.
307:- For something "made up in school one day", its certainly attracted a pretty good amount of attention from the media. Getting covered by NPR isn't exactly small potatoes, after all. I think with the sources it has in place, it more than meets notability requirements. Also, the original AFD closed 4 days ago as no-consensus (goshdarnit), perhaps a little more time to be worked on before trying to re-open the discussion would be a good thing.
463:- There are many reliable sources including national media outlets which cover this club. Its creator has written a book based on his work in the club, and has given inspirational talks at other schools. A city council issued a proclamation supporting the club's goal. All of these indicate that the club is important enough to be included, and that it meets all of the relevant guidelines for inclusion. --
480:. ] has it right. Sometimes things that start out in schools beome notable. This looks like one of them. When it gets to the point that David Letterman makes jokes about the subject (as he did this week), without any complicated setup, and the audience responds, than it's fair to say that the subject is well-enough recognized due to news coverage to meet the notability requirements.
157:, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Knowledge (XXG) is not." The article also needs to demonstrate Historical Notability, which this one does not. This was something that was
408:
By the lead section this seems perfectly notable. 30k member organization that resulted in a government proclamation. Just because a kid made it up initially doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something more notable. I consider the government action a much stronger evidence of notability than the
443:
Many things that meet the artificial guideline--not standard -- in WP N shouldn't have articles, and for three types of reasons; first because they may be better covered in other articles, second, ecause they are ruled out by the various provisions of NOT, and third, because they just plain are
245:
serves to further establish notability of this group. When notability is established by multiple independent reliable sources, the three I mentioned being major, not minor and local news venues, some other compelling reason needs to be provided for me to support deletion of this article.
525:
The movement has had no significant impact or achievements. The idea behind the club is a nice one, but the only thing which they can point out as an achievement, having the city council pass a symbolic proclamation, is very local in scale, and something which goes in a
523:(Digression: I have at earlier junctions argued that the current WP:N guideline is too strict with other types of topics, e.g. villages in Africa. To give WP:N some credit, it hits the mark just about right when it comes to chess openings).
81:
76:
409:
media coverage itself. Even if coverage did merely occur as a result of a 'slow news day', it more importantly allows the act to be verified through an independent and reliable source. -
142:
426:
meets WP:N, and no one is really arguing otherwise. Somethings that do meet WP:N don't need or shouldn't have an article. But I'd want pretty strong consensus on that...
71:
328:. Actually, if you take a look at the previous AFD, it closed 1 year and 4 days ago. That's plenty of tme for concerns to be addressed and a new consensus to be formed.
109:
104:
113:
17:
539:
513:
489:
472:
455:
435:
418:
400:
385:
356:
340:
316:
299:
268:
213:
196:
173:
54:
247:
96:
485:
521:. Concur with Starblind, Tedder and DGG. Also concur with DGG's assessment that this is an example of WP:N missing the mark.
554:
36:
497:. It wasn't Knowledge (XXG) where I first heard about this; people in the real world are starting to talk about it.
509:
481:
553:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
48:. Article meets GNG as demonstrated. No assertions of what elements of NOT this fails have not been discussed.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
352:
312:
347:
My bad, you're right about that part. Still, I stand by other point, that notability is established.
261:
100:
534:
242:
190:
373:
158:
414:
468:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
221:
This seems to be notable, and is not promotional. I do not see how the article could violate
348:
308:
209:
49:
527:
277:
222:
431:
381:
254:
92:
60:
241:
notable after that, as demonstrated by the LA Times and the NPR references. In addition,
237:
worthy of an article. While this may be something that was made up in school one day, it
150:
204:
per nom. Yes there is coverage, but it's all trivial "news of the weird" type coverage.
531:
397:
330:
281:
184:
163:
369:
226:
154:
451:
410:
464:
130:
205:
233:
of notability, so there needs to be some compelling argument as to why this is
427:
377:
501:
394:
149:
Although the article has a presumed notability because of its coverage in
446:
393:
This is current events. Historically speaking it is a blip on the radar.
225:
or any other reason to delete this article per the quoted section of
161:
in school one day, that happened to get coverage on slow news days.
547:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
376:
does not apply since it has been covered in reliable sources. -
153:, I contend that it is not actually notable because, per
137:
126:
122:
118:
82:
Articles for deletion/No
Cussing Club (3rd nomination)
77:
Articles for deletion/No
Cussing Club (2nd nomination)
229:. As the quoted section says, coverage provides a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
557:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
182:- Agree with everything said in the nom.
69:
72:Articles for deletion/No Cussing Club
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
368:Many verifiable sources. Satisfies
67:
276:per nom and tedder. Doesn't pass
24:
191:
185:
499:
528:newspaper, not an encyclopedia
1:
574:
540:09:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
55:00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
514:23:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
490:19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
473:16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
456:04:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
436:01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
419:00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
401:23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
386:20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
357:20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
341:19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
317:19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
300:19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
269:18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
214:18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
197:18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
174:17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
550:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
51:Der Wohltempierte Fuchs
66:AfDs for this article:
482:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
44:The result was
537:
524:
565:
552:
535:
522:
505:
339:
337:
297:
294:
291:
288:
266:
259:
252:
195:
193:
187:
172:
170:
140:
134:
116:
52:
34:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
561:
555:deletion review
548:
512:
331:
329:
295:
292:
289:
286:
262:
255:
248:
243:this from today
183:
164:
162:
136:
107:
93:No Cussing Club
91:
88:
86:
64:
61:No Cussing Club
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
560:
559:
543:
542:
516:
508:
492:
475:
458:
438:
421:
403:
388:
362:
361:
360:
359:
344:
343:
320:
319:
302:
282:Andrew Lenahan
271:
216:
199:
147:
146:
87:
85:
84:
79:
74:
68:
65:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
558:
556:
551:
545:
544:
541:
538:
533:
529:
520:
517:
515:
511:
510:Contributions
506:
504:
503:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
457:
453:
449:
448:
442:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
407:
404:
402:
399:
396:
392:
389:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:
342:
338:
336:
335:
327:
324:
323:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
301:
298:
283:
279:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
260:
258:
253:
251:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
188:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
171:
169:
168:
160:
156:
152:
144:
139:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
549:
546:
518:
500:
498:
494:
477:
460:
445:
440:
423:
405:
390:
365:
333:
332:
325:
304:
285:
273:
263:
256:
249:
238:
234:
230:
218:
201:
179:
166:
165:
148:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
349:Umbralcorax
309:Umbralcorax
231:presumption
532:Sjakkalle
374:WP:MADEUP
334:Firestorm
186:Jenuk1985
167:Firestorm
536:(Check!)
411:Verdatum
257:Seeker 4
143:View log
465:Megaboz
326:Comment
110:protect
105:history
519:Delete
441:Delete
398:(tock)
391:Delete
278:WP:ORG
274:Delete
239:became
223:WP:NOT
206:tedder
202:Delete
180:Delete
159:MADEUP
138:delete
114:delete
428:Hobit
378:Atmoz
219:Keep.
151:WP:RS
141:) – (
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
502:Soap
495:Keep
486:talk
478:Keep
469:talk
461:Keep
452:talk
432:talk
424:Keep
415:talk
406:Keep
395:Shii
382:talk
370:WP:V
366:Keep
353:talk
313:talk
305:Keep
264:Talk
227:WP:N
210:talk
192:Talk
155:WP:N
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
447:DGG
293:bli
250:The
235:not
530:.
488:)
471:)
454:)
434:)
417:)
384:)
372:.
355:)
315:)
296:nd
290:ar
287:St
284:-
280:.
212:)
189:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
507:/
484:(
467:(
450:(
430:(
413:(
380:(
351:(
311:(
208:(
145:)
135:(
133:)
95:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.