Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraskana


 * 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   Delete. Fram (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraskana (formerly Nebraskana Society)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This book does not meet the notability standard in WP:NBOOK. There is no indication that it meets the 2nd through 5th parts of NBOOK. As for the first, a search of Google Books shows several hits, though most appear trivial (copyright entries, etc.). There is a brief review in the American Library Association Subscription book bulletin, but that doesn't seem substantial enough to meet the first part of NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." ALXVA (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was originally called Nebraskana Society and was intended (apparently) to be about an honor society rather than about a book. For whatever reason, the author never went beyond the 1932 book in gathering information about the organization, although there are things available .  The  nominator rewrote the perspective of the article to be about the book, based on the limited information in the article, and then nominated his or her own work for deletion.  Thus, I can't see judging this by WP:NBOOK alone, and I'm going to throw in "Nebraskana Society" in to the title of the discussion .  On the other hand, I don't see any news or book evidence to show that the Nebraskana Society was ever notable.  If anyone out of the Cornhusker State wants to write an article about the society itself, I'm all for keeping.  Mandsford 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a good point. I refocused the article on the book at the suggestion of the editor who removed the prod I placed on the article. That editor thought the best chance for notability was for the book. So far as I can tell, the Nebraskana Society was never an actual club, society, group, or what have you, that had meetings or selected members or did the things one thinks of when thinking of a society of some sort. It was merely what the authors called the group of people the authors selected to be covered in the book. I think membership in the Nebraskana Society is the same thing (nothing more or less) than inclusion in this book. Thus, in fairness to the article creator (and to me in moving the article to the book name), the society and the book seem to be coextensive so I doubt much of note was left out. The book's introduction seems to support this view and explain why nothing else on the society can be found. ALXVA (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments – it's not clear to me that there is a potential article on this topic, but the present article is not it. (The book seems to be mainly a list of names + photos + bios - eg we have "Mr. Dahlman, one of Omaha's most beloved citizens, served as mayor nearly 25 years, and in 1928 was elected delegate at large to the Democratic national convention. He was a member of the Community Chest, the Chamber of Commerce, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Library Commission, the Fraternal Aid Union, the Royal Arcanum, the Woodmen of the World, the Ancient Order of United Workmen, the Moose and the Elks. He was president of the Americanization League. (Deceased)." I would certainly like an article on 'the Woodmen of the World'.) A redirect and merge to a subsection of History of Nebraska might be a solution, pending more substantial efforts. Occuli (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that we have not only James Dahlman but also Woodmen of the World. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. Occuli (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Since there has been suggestion that WP:NBOOK is not the only relevant guideline, I would just mention that the Nebraskana Society seems to fall short very short of WP:ORG. The only substantial coverage of the group I can find is in the book which is not independent of the society and even if it were independent, one book does not constitute multiple sources. The first hit on Google regarding the society as linked above is the online digitized copy of the book. Everything else seems to be genealogical work or various other listings. In sum, I think the book fails to meet WP:NBOOK and the organization or whatever one would call it fails to meet WP:ORG. ALXVA (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - per nom. Fails all five NBOOK Criteria as this book does not receive "mulitiple non-trivial" coverage, has not won "a major literary award", made a "significant contribution" to various forms of listed media, is not the "subject of instruction" or reading lists, and the book's author is not "so historically notable". moreno oso (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (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.