Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Cussing Club (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Article meets GNG as demonstrated. No assertions of what elements of NOT this fails have not been discussed. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No Cussing Club
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although the article has a presumed notability because of its coverage in WP:RS, I contend that it is not actually notable because, per WP:N, "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 Wikipedia is not." The article also needs to demonstrate Historical Notability, which this one does not. This was something that was MADEUP in school one day, that happened to get coverage on slow news days. Firestorm Talk 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with everything said in the nom. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yes there is coverage, but it's all trivial "news of the weird" type coverage. tedder (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be notable, and is not promotional. I do not see how the article could violate WP:NOT or any other reason to delete this article per the quoted section of WP:N. As the quoted section says, coverage provides a presumption of notability, so there needs to be some compelling argument as to why this is not worthy of an article. While this may be something that was made up in school one day, it became notable after that, as demonstrated by the LA Times and the NPR references. In addition, this from today 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. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and tedder. Doesn't pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- 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. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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. Firestorm  Talk 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, you're right about that part. Still, I stand by other point, that notability is established. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Many verifiable sources. Satisfies WP:V. WP:MADEUP does not apply since it has been covered in reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is current events. Historically speaking it is a blip on the radar. Shii (tock) 23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 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. -Verdatum (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 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...Hobit (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 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.  DGG (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - 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. --Megaboz (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. [{User:Hobit|Hobit]] 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It wasn't Wikipedia where I first heard about this; people in the real world are starting to talk about it.  Soap Talk/Contributions 23:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Starblind, Tedder and DGG. Also concur with DGG's assessment that this is an example of WP:N missing the mark. (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). 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 newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 10 March 2009 (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.