Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Flirt Club


 * 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   WP:SNOW keep. Significant coverage be damned! Non-admin closure. Pcap ping  13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Flirt Club

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be sourced entirely from a blog (shorpy.com) run by the well-known historian "Dave". Some of the discussion on the talk page indicates hoax or parody elements. Given who was involved in this article (hint: recently "deceased" ArbCom candidate), this AfD can reasonably be construed as shameless drama whoring on my behalf. Pcap ping  08:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep:I have no reason to see this article as anything other than genuine. It is recorded in th Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA which I would have thought was a suitable enough reference, bearing in mind the dubious references used for some of the information on porn stars and the like. As a piece of social history it not only amuses it educates. What seems to us funny was real life in the 1920; in an era when no-one thought it unusual to ban black people from voting and ban alcahol, Ms reighly and her friends seem perfectly feasable. She is part of America's social history. If children etc, for whom we are writing this project are not amused they won't read, and they won't be educated. If the Library of congress is running a hoax then delete, I strongly suspect it is not. Giano (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was created by an alternate account of yours. So don't pretend you're a third party. Pcap ping  08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think anyone is unaware of that - do you? Giano (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Google books should allay any fears as to the veracity of the article's content. Nancy  talk  08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some mentions in google books, but nothing substantive. The references hastily added to the article are one-sentence. That and one photograph in the library of congress does not seem enough to pass WP:N. The details from the article are unverifiable as it stands. Pcap ping  08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a bit of a disagreement between sources whether the organization started in 1920 or 1923, but it is certainly not a hoax. The first book cited only shows a caption on Google Books and should be read in full before being called a one-liner (Remember, references don't need to be online). Nothing here that can't be fixed with editing over deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought at first it might be a hoax, but discovered the pic on LoC website. You can't of course have an article purely because you find a document mentioning it in a large database documenting modern social history (pure WP:OR), but as shown the club is discussed in a modern academic book (so passing WP:N and WP:V ), if only briefly. That's certainly more than many articles have, certainly more than the horde of fiction characters, tv episodes, college athletes and British footballers who've never kicked a professional ball. The question then is what individual parts are and are not verifiable. This is a different question. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Pcap ping  09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, just because someone started an essay with that title doesn't mean one can't analyse wikipedia's content structurally. :p In fact, one has to ... so this response [I guess you think it's a counter-argument] is rather odd and silly. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With a bit of work this article will make a great basis for a DYK. Poltair (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And just as factually accurate as the DYK about Obama's victory speech. Pcap ping  10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  10:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Needs improvement, but definitely not a hoax. &mdash; neuro(talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - between google books and scholar there are enough sources to show this is a notable subject. Has anyone noticed that it appears to be snowing slightly? PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.