Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group of 88


 * 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 Redirected to Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Kei lana (recall) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Group of 88

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article already created and deleted once. See deletion logs. Not notable enough for its own article - there should just be a link to the list of individuals who signed the ad, in my opinion. Topic already covered in Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case in some detail. Topic can be expanded there if people choose to do so. Delete/Merge with Responses article. Bluedog423Talk 04:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. StaticElectric (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per nom. This minor group is not notable enough for its own article. Chris!  c t 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov   ::contact::  help! 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a link is sufficient.DGG (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. STORMTRACKER   94  13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I disagree with the nominator on several points. Request response from nominator and those who agree with him or her:
 * This group's notability, in terms of national media attention, exceeds that of most groups or people profiled on Wikipedia: This group has been discussed in the national media (examples: ) and given treatments in major books by credible academics and publishing houses . I request that the nominator make his or her case that this group is not notable.  If national media attention is not sufficient to establish notability, please outline the standards by which a group is deemed notable.  If this amount of national attention is not enough to establish a requisite level of notability, then does this set precedent for the deletion of all groups and people who have been mentioned less than this group?
 * This group is notable as they have elicited a range of debates on serious issues: This group's behavior in the Duke case has evoked questions about a range of serious political issues, including, for example, reverse-discrimination, respect for due process, or the political behavior of educators. These are weighty, non-trivial issues.
 * This entry has not been covered elsewhere. The article you cite is about the Lacrosse rape case itself, and does not discuss the members of this group nor present an adequate venue for profiling the issues raised in the public sphere about their behavior.  To open up the issues noted in #2 on the page you cite would be off-topic.  In addition, by not allowing this group to be profiled independently, you restrict opportunities for issues that pertain to these scholars and the implications of their behavior, net of the particulars associated with the rape case, to be developed on Wikipedia


 * I find the argument about non-notability to be dubious and unsubstantiated. Please make the case that it is less notable than the majority of groups covered in Wikipedia.  For example, I challenge you to look through the 12,000 clubs and organizations returned in this search -  - and tell me which of these have received broader national attention or are associated with more serious, substantive societal issues than the group profiled here.  Should all of these entries be deleted, or are they more notable than the Group of 88?


 * Furthermore, thirteen of the people who are part of this group are deemed notable enough themselves to merit Wikipedia entries. Will those who vote in favor of deleting this entry also support the deletion of the thirteen individual entries based on non-notability?


 * On the issue of duplication, this article is NOT about the Duke rape case. It is about the group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths.  There are issues that pertain to this case that stretch well beyond the "media fallout" of the Duke case.  This entry deserves to be maintained so that this event may be better profiled.  By deleting this article on the grounds that it is not independently substantive also opens the door to a range of deletions.  Please clarify the criteria by which you judge an article to be sufficiently covered elsewhere as to merit its deletion.


 * Also, a quick procedural reminder. Deletion processes on Wikipedia are discussions, not votes.  As such, I would appreciate responses from the five votes in favor of deletion that contributed no extra discussion or insight, but simply agreed with the nominator. -The kekon (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your logic for keeping the article is severely flawed because it is based on your 100% correct statement that the "article is NOT about the Duke rape case." You argue that "It is about the group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths."  I never said it should be merged with the Duke rape case article.  It is, however, 100% about Responses to the case.  The only notable action this group EVER did as a group was to be signatories of an advertisement (and a clarifying statement) as a response to the LAX incident.  This is certainly covered in the responses article already and the "media campaign" that, you argue, resulted from this ad, can be expanded there.  Every single news article you cite agrees with me and shows no other collective action concerning this group.  "The Group of 88" is not an ongoing representative body, but rather some professors who signed an ad ONE TIME.  This is most definitely within the scope of the responses article, and the resulting media coverage can be covered there too.  You argue that the responses article "does not discuss the members of this group."  Ok, what do you want it to discuss? It already talks about Houston Baker's comments - and those should be attributed to him, not the group as a whole.  Certainly other comments can be added as well and feel free to do so.  If you want to "profile members" about their contributions/curriculum vitae unrelated to the LAX case, do so on their own wikipedia pages if they are notable individuals (see Houston A. Baker, Jr.).   If you want to "profile members" about their response to the case, do so in the responses article.  You also put forth many arguments in your attempts to establish notability (e.g. "It is a group of professors that initiated a media campaign against wrongfully-accused youths").  I personally think that while what the professors did was clearly wrong and misguided, they are not so powerful as to "initiate a media campaign" themselves. The media is certainly responsible for its own actions, IMO.   And some media outlets did behave appropriately such as The News & Observer (early coverage withstanding) and The Chronicle.  Finally, your argument that 13 people in the group have their own wikipedia pages, so if somebody supports a delete of the group, they ought to also support the deletion of the individual articles makes no sense whatsoever.  Is it not possible that these professors established notability in their own right (i.e. before being part of a group of an ad's signatories)?  Houston A. Baker, for example, served as president of the Modern Language Association.  This is something he actually did not related to the LAX case...I know hard to believe. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 18:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an inadequate response. Your case is based on two premises: (1) that the group is non-notable and (2) that the issue is completely covered in the other article, and should not be treated as a central object of attention in a Wikipedia entry.
 * ""The Group of 88" is not an ongoing representative body, but rather some professors who signed an ad ONE TIME." Your claim that they signed one ad, and engaged in no further action, is false.  You are fabricating facts.  This group has independently made cases in the public sphere justifying their actions on several occasions.  Is it your contention that all collectives that issue less than two joint statements be deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that they do not constitute a real group? Such a precedent justifies the deletion of all entries of many well-known, noteworthy groups that do not regularly issue joint statements.  If I found you five similar groups who do not issue such joint statements, would you (and those who agree with you) initiate and support a deletion proposal on these grounds, or are you only evoking this principle to suppress discussion of the Group of 88?
 * Is it your contention that all groups that do not construe themselves as forming a "representative body" be deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that they do not constitute a real group? If I found you five such groups, would you also initiate a deletion proposal on these grounds, or are you only evoking this principle to suppress discussion of the Group of 88?
 * Regardless of your opinion: "they are not so powerful as to "initiate a media campaign" themselves. The media is certainly responsible for its own actions, IMO." That is EXACTLY what happened.  Wikipedia is not the place for your opinions on how the media works, IMO and by Wikipedia policy.   They issues a paid media announcement that initiated discussions that continue today.  That is established fact.  The burden is on you to conclusively demonstrate that these patently clear events are not what they seem.
 * Journalistic news values deem the actions of notable people to be more notable. Are these people notable or not?
 * You do not assert a clear principle that explains your desire to suppress this entry. I make a case explaining why it merits its own entry, and I ask you to make a case why it such an entry needs to be suppressed,  Your response only attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me, and asks only questions rather than providing clear principles that justify your attempt to suppress speech and an independent venue for discussing this patently newsworthy event.  If you wish to suppress others' speech, particularly after having been given clear reasons for that speech, the burden is on YOU to justify your actions with clear, broadly-applicable reasons.


 * Frankly, I think you have real nerve to flatly deny the notability of a group that has so obviously attracted more national attention than 90% (if not 99%) of what is on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your position that it is MY job to prove this patently notable deserves an entry, as opposed to you assuming the burden of justifying your desire to suppress it, is destructive in Wikipedia, and in public sphere discourse more generally.


 * BTW, do you have any relationship or prior involvement with Duke University or this group that should be disclosed? I have none. -The kekon (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Should be a redirect if not retained and so deletion is not appropriate.  I have just edited the article accordingly to demonstrate this.  Take further debate to the discussion page.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You deleted this page and called it a "keep". You do not have the right to do this unilaterally.  Please make your case on this board, rather than decide yourself.  Wikipedia policy calls for five days of discussion, then a default to "keep".  If you are an administrator with the power to do make unilateral decisions, I ask that you recuse yourself for violating the five-day discussion rule. Please keep this from turning into an edit war. -The kekon (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator. I don't have the power to delete the page and did not do so.  I just edited the page, as you have done by reverting my edit.  00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "edit" is tantamount to a delete -- it (1) made the page unavailable, (2) effectively reverts Wikipedia to its state before this article was created (you didn't even make an effort to migrate the information), and (3) is precisely in line with what is being asked by those who are voting for a delete. How do you figure that you aren't deleting the article?  Because you say "keep" before you do it? Please participate in the debate before making major decisions about the fate of this article.-The kekon (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You (and they) don't seem to understand what deletion is. It is a quite specific and powerful action because it removes the article's history and discussion from view and so makes further editing impossible for non-admin editors.  No-one seems to want that here and so that's why I voted Keep.  Editing a page to make it a redirect is open to any editor and so well within my rights.  By making this edit, I improved the Wikipedia because someone putting Group of 88 into the search box would be directed to a relevant section of a better article on the subject.  They would not only learn who the group were, but would also have good context for their notability.  The only downside is the loss of the long list of names.  Since most of them are redlinks, this seems to be no big deal.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't redlinks any more. Someone edited them (I thought it was you - heaven forbid someone actually contribute to the article rather than complain about it).  Ultimately, the article is thin in substance now, but this is a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy, as no one is going to contribute an article facing deletion.  The point is that this group merits their own entry, and not be relegated to a mish-mash page of miscellaneous responses to the Duke case.  If anything THAT page merits being split up into independent pages and linked to the main Duke lacrosse case article.  Besides the redlinks, which has now been resolved, neither you nor anyone else has made a case for denying the existence of this page that stands up.  PLEASE attempt to reach consensus in discussion through discussion.
 * There are still many problems with the article. These include:


 * No sources
 * 89 names are listed not 88. Is one a phony?  How can we tell?
 * Elizabeth Clark died in 1978.
 * Turning the redlinks into no links doesn't help. The point is that the full list of names is not needed because most of these people are not otherwise notable.
 * This group did not and does not have a continuing existence. It is just a reference to a one-time news event.  It is thus best covered as part of that event.
 * Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, this is at least a productive contribution, rather than just an attempt to suppress the page.
 * Fine, this can be easily sourced. But no one is going to put a ton of effort into this page while it is subject to deletion proceedings
 * The 89 names are from a letter clarifying the signatories position on their letter (the so-called "second letter"). The link is here .  My guess is that someone who did not sign the first letter signed the second one, but I can look into that.
 * Obviously this is a different Elizabeth Clark. I'm sure the name is common.  I've deleted the link.
 * The group itself is deemed notable by WP:N.
 * Your logic for deleting a group on the groups that they were only involved in one newsworthy incidentwould apply to many other historically well-known, and perhaps even important, groups. Would you be willing to initiate a delete proceeding on the same groups for the famed baseball Black Sox, for example?  Did they self-identify as the Black Sox, or have some type of ongoing organization?  Try and propose a deletion for that article.  I could give you ten more, but I think that the point has been made.
 * Furthermore, which Wikipedia policy are you evoking with this "continuing existence" condition?
 * The sourcing and numbers list are substantial concerns, some of which can be addressed in the near future. There are easy and straightforward remedies, and they fall in line with Wikipedia policy.  The last point isn't a Wikipedia policy, and thus isn't grounds for deleting the article.
 * And, by the way, redirecting an article while it is under review is a violation of Wikipedia policy -The kekon (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge Full Disclosure - I am a Duke faculty member and a Duke alum; I did not sign either the "Listening Ad" or the "Clarifying Letter."  At present, this "article" seems to be nothing more than a list of people whose "group" identity is only notable in direct reflection of Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case and which only existed insofar as they signed on to one advertisement in the student newspaper.  If there is something else for which the group is notable - rather than for which some individuals are notable - then there should be a page.  As it is, this is an entirely subsumed part of another page and should be treated as such.  Individual contributions to the case which are notable should of course be properly researched, added, and referenced NPOV on individual pages and on the Responses page.  DukeEGR93 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you people even reading the other posts?
 * This group is deemed to be notable if “the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” (see WP:N). Here we go: Wall Street Journal, CBS , News & Observer , Fox News , San Diego Tribune , Buffalo News   and US News and World Report .  Is that enough?
 * This "not an ongoing group" case is BS. Which policy are you evoking?  The same can be said about the Chicago Black Sox, who also did not constitute a ongoing organization. No one would be willing to call for that entry's deletion on these grounds, which is telling about how poor a deletion criteria it is.
 * No one is going to build the Group of 88 page while it is under deletion proceedings, and it was placed under such proceedings as soon as it was created. I'm frankly surprised about how many (Duke-affiliated people) really don't want this page to exist. -The kekon (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure who "you people" are.
 * I can assure you at least that I read the other arguments and rationales and also that I made an effort to remain as informed as possible on the case as it happened. Please note my statement is not that "The Group" is  "not an ongoing group" but rather that their "notability" is wholly subsumed by another page.  The Chicago Black Sox were quite notable in their own right separately from any other singular enshrined event - can a case be made for the specific collection in the so-called "Group"?  The one act of the "Group" was signing onto an advertisement.  I'm certainly willing to read information about other actions committed as a group, as nothing in my readings has produced such a finding.
 * Beyond that - if "No one is going to build the Group of 88 page while it is under deletion proceedings," can you or others at least describe what the presumptive independently notable contents might be? The sources you are cited include a letter to the editor, an article that mentions the "Group" once in passing, a guest column by KC Johnson whom I've met and like but would not exactly call "independent" in this particular case, a story about a web page built by other faculty members, a story about a lawsuit against an individual member of the group, an article I can't read without paying, and a column that, again, mentions "The Group" only in passing.  The San Diego Tribune article would seem to be the one openly available "nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person" - except it is not primarily about The Group but about faculty relations.  DukeEGR93 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The group itself is notable by Wikipedia policy. Case closed -- read the policy youself.
 * If you really feel that no members of that group are notable apart from this incident, would you support the deletion of all individual members' listings? Several of them have articles, and I don't see you trying to delete them.  So either cut the garbage with non-notability, or show that you really believe in these principles and are not just selectively evoking them to suppress this discussion.  Like the Black Sox, this group has plenty of notable members.
 * Nice try on excluding these articles, but no dice. The editorial boards of all of theses authoritative outlets saw them fit to print, and they were thus in the media.  Stick to Wikipedia policy -- your personal journalistic assessments qand judgments on particular scholars are opinions alone. If you want to develop some kind of journalistic standard, then agree to support deletion of other articles that do not meet these standards, then go ahead and articulate these standards and agree to apply them elsewhere impartially.  I personally think that youy are looking for reasons to suppress this article.  In addition:
 * The onus is on you to establish KC Johnson's lack of independence. Was he directly involved in this incident somehow, or is he not "independent" because he was critical of this group and you don't like that?  Is this the Fox News model of "fair and balanced"?
 * There was a variety of debates that were intensified by the actions of this group, which I set forth above: "...reverse-discrimination, respect for due process, or the political behavior of educators." I am loth to go into detail for fear that you will tactically demand I write the article to prove its worthiness to exist, only to have it deleted later based on your personal assessments of noteworthiness (which seem to operate apart from WP:N), have you cite this other, unspoken deletion policy that no one has yet identified explicitly.
 * Wikipedia has established guidelines for these issues, why am I the only person discussing this deletion in terms of actual policy? -00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Delete Dlae  │  here  15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge; these are people who signed one fairly minor, as the world goes, document. Far better to delete the list of names and merge this to the page on the case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a news source and in addition, it contridcts itself because 89 people are listed. Tavix (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (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.

Proposal
Just to clarify. I propose that this discussion be considered close in favor of keep, should those supporting its deletion not show that their proposal conforms to Wikipedia policy. The case for keeping the article has been maintained according to WP:N -The kekon (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This group is deemed to be notable if “the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” (see WP:N)  I trust that this has already been established here.  This group is SHOWN to be notable by Wikipedia guidelines.  Please see the links I have cited above.
 * 2) The article on "Responses to the Duke Case" is NOT the same article as this one.  It is a broader, classificatory page that includes information on this group, but does not highlight this group, nor offer individual names, nor provide a venue to discuss this Group's behavior independent of the general fallout of the Duke Lacrosse case.  These articles are patently not equivalent.  Please cite the specific Wikipedia policy that you are evoking in this discussion.
 * 3) Colonel Warden's basis for opposing the article -- the redlinks -- has been resolved
 * Re: Arguments about the article's lack of content. I propose that this article be tagged as a stub in need of development

Unilaterally changing the articles without proper discussion does not constitute a resolution of this issue. A strong case for deletion, or even redirect, must be made. -16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is sad to see such a concerted effort from Duke-affiliated people who want this article pushed to the back corners of Wikipedia, without a snit of policy or even a cogent argument for their position. At this point, I am not going to keep responding to the same two arguments unless someone argues in terms of policy.
 * I invite you to WP:FAITH. Please note that I did address policy concerns - specifically whether the sources you provided above fit the definition you also provided regarding notability.  That you disagree with me is fundamentally different from not addressing your stated concerns. DukeEGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: I hope for acknowledgement that this stub has been shown to meet WP:N and offers potential for chronicling many important and newsworthy debates. Furthermore, I encourage you to read many of these opponents as being Duke-affiliated, and thus see their capacity for NPOV as questionable. If there is ambiguity on any of these issues, I hope that Wikipedia chooses to err on the side of more free speech, rather than less. -The kekon (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I invite you again to WP:FAITH <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are getting that this is a "concerted effort from Duke-affiliated people" to get the article deleted. As far as I know, nobody contacted another user to chime in on the debate.  Actually, the only person that did such a thing was you on the Duke LAX scandal talk pages, saying that people are trying to "suppress" its creation.  So, it's clearly not a "concerted effort."  And of the people who have supported its deletion/merge/redirect (i.e. everybody but you), DukeEgr93 is the only Duke-affiliated person that is evident. User:StaticElectric is affiliated with Kansas University, User:Chrishomingtang is a student or alumnus of San Francisco State University, User:Xiong Chiamiov shows no evidence of being affiliated with Duke nor any other university, User:DGG is an administrator and librarian who is an alumnus of Rutgers, User:Stormtracker94 is a student in Massachusetts, and User:Colonel Warden doesn't seem to have any association with Duke.  So, clearly this is not a "concerted effort of Duke-affiliated people" to "suppress" the page.    These accusations approach personal attacks, and you need to assume good faith as DukeEGR93 pointed out to you.  Take it easy, -Bluedog423Talk 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize about WP:FAITH, but what about the policy as it relates to the actual article deletion? I misspoke with the use of the word "concerted", because it looks like I'm accusing you of meatpuppeteering, and I'm not. The people you mention, BlueDog423, are of no consequence, as far as I'm concerned, as they have provided no debate and this is not a voting process. And, by the way, how do you know so much about them? Where was this information on their user pages? In any case, this is not a vote, and, so far, most of the resistance comes from "Bluedog423" AND "DukeEGR93", and I wanted to point to the fact that you two are associated with the subject in question.

Lots and lots of argument about everything but policy as it relates to article deletion. The fact remains: this debate is continuing even though none of you are evoking Wikipedia policy with regard to the article deletion. I apologize, but understand that it is very frustrating to debate with people who stubbornly avoid the rules that set the parameters of this debate. This debate is tiring. You have not made a good case for deleting or redirecting this article, and, frankly, I've stopped waiting for you to make such a case. If this article get sent to the back corners of Wikipedia -- to some poorly classified, ridiculously low-volume page, because people from Duke don't want it there -- and you both are people with Duke affiliations -- then it would be sad. I hope that Wikipedia chooses to err on the side of more free speech, rather than less.-The kekon (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * How notable can "The Group" be if the membership, as listed, is not even "The Group" i.e. not even an accurate list of the people who signed the "Listening Ad"?
 * My take on each of the elements of notability, specifically from WP:N's "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Items in bold are from the page itself.
 * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. My subjective personal judgment is that the events of the last 21 months will have a major impact on Duke and on Durham for a long time, so the page about the case itself certainly exceeds WP:N.  The question at hand is how notable are subsidiary elements?  The accuser, Crystal Mangum, has not been deemed notable enough to have her own page.  The innocent accused, David Evans, Collin Finnerty], and [[Reade Seligmann - have not been deemed notable enough to have their own pages.  David Evans in fact does not even have a redirect to the case page.  If such principal players in this case have not been deemed notable, how can a group of faculty and staff who signed one advertisement in the case be independently notable?  Those items listed above as well as this particular page are examples of WP:NOTINHERITED.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. As detailed above, with the possible exception of one of the sources presented, the other independent sources do not directly deal with "The Group of 88."
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. Certainly the sources you mention are reliable, with the exception of the letter to the editor.  The KC Johnson guest column would, I believe, be up for debate given his involvement in the case.
 * *"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Quality of sources is the key here.  How many of the provided sources directly and primarily focus on "The Group of 88" and how many are instead articles that deal with individual faculty members, many of whom - just like the error-riddled list currently sitting on Group of 88 are not people who signed the "Listening Ad."
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Certainly, nothing you've listed is produced by any of the actual people who signed the listening ad; however, "The Group of 88" was a term coined by KC Johnson so, again, I believe that takes his guest column out of this discussion.
 * "If this article get sent to the back corners of Wikipedia -- to some poorly classified, ridiculously low-volume page, because people from Duke don't want it there -- and you both are people with Duke affiliations -- then it would be sad. " If the Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case is such a  "poorly classified, ridiculously low-volume" page, how could a wholly subsumed subsidiary page rise to the level of notability?  That sounds somewhat like a WP:BHTT argument, which does not carry much water with me because, again, if the macroscopic topic is in the (non-existent) "back corners of Wikipedia," how is it better to have some component of that with its own article?
 * Furthermore, from WP:NOPE - Notability is not judged in isolation:
 * The best test for this sort of relationship is to ask, "would a very short summary of the parent topic be expected to include the child topic?" Even then, typically such subordinate topics are merged into the parent unless (as noted above) size limitations make this option less ideal.
 * Emphasis mine. A list of 88 people, properly constructed in an expandable box, really isn't that big a deal.  It is not a case of WP:LOSE - just a case of whether the information should be placed within the appropriate notable context or if the information is notable enough on its own.  The list of names, if added to the Responses article, would fall under WP:NNC - which I believe is met.
 * Thus the argument for a merge. <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for dealing with policy. With all due respect, I find your reading of this policy to be completely off:
 * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable  This means that you are supposed to presume that the notability criteria is met if it shows up in a credible source.  Your subjective evaluations are precisely what is stated to be not relevant here.  BTW, Crystal Gail Magnum was profiled here, but efforts similar to yours got it suppressed too.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. They all directly deal with this group.  Read it: "may be less than exclusive."  What do you construe as "direct", given this clause?
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. If you want to make a case for excluding KC Johnson, then make it already. Also, keep in mind that those articles were found quite quickly and easily.  A search on Google News of "Group of 88" (in quotes) returns 377 results.  I doubt I'd have trouble finding a "multitude" in there.  If you genuinely doubt the notability, but would be open-minded if you saw other evidence, why not run that query yourself?
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.  KC Johnson was not directly involved.  Please make a clear case to exclude him.  I personally think that it is a silly argument to propose that we exclude him for coining the term under which this article will be filed, and that he is pretty much a prolific, outside observer on the case.  Regardless of your feelings on him, his views or personal style, I don't think you have a case that we have to disregard all work by him because he came up with the term.  That's silly.  Please make a serious case that he is not independent of the action in question.
 * There is no way my arguments come close to a WP:BHTT. Read the policy: "This argument is often made regarding articles comprised solely of mentions of otherwise notable subjects in non-notable circumstances" This event is entirely notable, as established above.  If I was writing an article about how they are all related because their jointly-signed web page is administered by the same webmaster, then I would be guilty of violating that policy.
 * I don't really understand the rest of your case. Please clarify with specifics.

Listen, this is a clear case that this group is notable, and, as I've said many times above, this group is more notable, and more deserving of a direct treatment, than 99% of what is posted on this site. Why are you so committed to not having this article exist? Your behavior totally mystifies me. It's newsworthy, and avails itself to many debates. Go ahead and look at the articles on Google News. Why don't you want these issues profiled independently on Wikipedia? Why do you want them to be relegated to a catch-all page on the fallout of the Duke case? No one is making a clear argument why it would improve Wikipedia. Why would it omprove Wikipedia, seriously? -The kekon (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At this stage, I'm willing to simply let others chime in about the various statements made above and have the admins weigh the discussions and come to a conclusion. I've stated my impressions of policy and of the notability and inaccuracy of the page as fully as I feel appropriate. <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)