Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana Historical Association (North Louisiana History 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   keep. The broad consensus here is that this organisation, while not major by any stretch of the imagination, does just about satisfy our notability guidelines through sufficient coverage - it's not a big organisation, and the corresponding coverage seems similarly small in scale - but most participants seem to feel it's enough. I'll commend the nominator on putting a lot of thought into this discussion but ultimately the consensus doesn't support removing it. ~ mazca  talk 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

North Louisiana Historical Association
AfDs for this article:  Related AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Both the North Louisiana Historical Association and its journal North Louisiana History are nominated. They were both created by User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, to promote work in the local historical journal. He cites his one article published by North Louisiana History many, many times like A. T. Powers, Port Lavaca, Texas, James Whitfield Williamson and more than twenty articles here (Keep in mind this is since his block and after people started deleting or scrubbing his self-promotion). Hathorn also cites other people's North Louisiana History articles, such as this one with two different articles.

Two articles for deletion:
 * 1) Every city, county, town, village, state and region of the state has a historical association. The North Louisiana Historical Association is a private organization and has not met the standards of Notability (organizations and companies). There is no significant coverage. The sources are either from the North Louisiana Historical Association itself or minor mentions, including one a history forum where anyone with email can post. Indeed, if it weren't for Hathorn's own promotion the article would not exist on wikipedia.


 * 2) North Louisiana History was also started by User:Billy Hathorn as well as many other wiki articles where he cited his articles published by North Louisiana History. There are many sources, but as you can see from the previous AFD with no consensus, Hathorn decided to inflate the sources by adding every trival mention he could find, including listings in worldcat that merely document how many years it was called North Louisiana Historical Association bulletin or North Louisiana Historical Association news letter and so on. This fails Notability (books) as it has no university press connection (a retired professor edits in from office space at a university, that's the only academic connection). There is no significant coverage by historians about this, no multiple non-trival press coverage, no awards from the historical community and so on. Again, Hathorn created this article because it ties into his other self-promotion of unnotable subjects and ignoring the policy, which got him banned. SalHamton (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  08:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit to add: On 10 April 2011 the North Louisiana History article was nominated for deletion for the first time. Then TWO DAYS LATER the North Louisiana Historical Association was created on 12 April 2011 by person who voted keep in the AFD on 11 April 2011. SalHamton (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- A disticntion needs to be drawn between organisations that merely provide a lecture program, and those that publish a journal or other periodocal with substantive articles. In England, most counties have an archaeological society that publishes, in a journal of record, articles resulting from primary academic research inot the history and archaeology of that county.  On contrast, towns will have a historical society that organises lectures and outings that merely publishes a newsletter announcing its programme.  The county societies seem notable to me, but not the local ones.  Applying that here, I would suggest that the Society is notable.  It may be that the two articles could usefully be merged.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want to ignore Notability (organizations and companies) that requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and claim that it has inherent notability because it self-publishes? SalHamton (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Please also see my !vote in the AfD on the journal. As I said there "I don't see much evidence for notability (and hence maintain my "delete both" !vote), I also could live with a situation where this would be redirected to the article on the organization with the basic information merged there (but the references need to be seriously pruned and those silly quotes purporting to show importance of the journal/society would need to go)". --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the org page, merge the journal article into this one. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I can't see any significant coverage that extends at all beyond super local coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither this article nor the article on the journal really meets the relevant notability criteria. Merging would be marginally acceptable. --Boson (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless I am missing something, the organisation satifies WP:GNG, being mentioned in a book published by the Louisiana State University Press and a newspaper. The mentions are not trivial ( a page or so in a book and a thousand word article). James500 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC) [Note: This should read "three sentences in a book".] James500 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG demands: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The ONE book mention merely says "the North Louisiana Historical Association was organized in 1952..." That's the entire coverage. Click on the book, which takes you to google books where you can see that it is mentioned one time and only in passing (on page 313). The ONE newspaper reference mentions the organization in a parenthetical clause: "The Winter 2006 edition of North Louisiana History, which is published by the North Louisiana Historical Association, ..." That's it. Again a trivial mention.
 * Thus, the sources are either from the North Louisiana Historical Association itself or trivial mentions, which means the subject lacks "significant" and independent coverage, failing GNG. SalHamton (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, actually the book discusses the history of the association at length. It does not have to actually use the expression "North Louisiana Historical Association" over and over again if it is obviously discussing what its members did in their capacity as members. (And actually the name is used at least twice on page 313. You need to read more of the book than just the snippet that Google provides.) Likewise with the article. You need to read the whole thing. Not just a short preview. James500 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) There is also that book by B H Gilley cited in the journal article. It praises the association. Critical appraisal is inherently non-trivial. James500 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually looked this subject up in several databases before nominating the article. I used academic search engines and archival news sources. You imply that you read these sources, but I don't think you did. The book from 1975, Louisiana, the Pelican State is about "tracing the development of Louisiana from its first Indian settlement to a busy modern state in the 1980s." So the book is a history of the state going back hundreds of years. The Association is mentioned in two locations: on page 313 and listing in the index (355). Perhaps your definition of "at length" is different than mine. The mention about it reads like a genealogical list of names. Did you read the beyond what's available in google? Please quote all the mentions of the association, if you did. Secondly, the ONE article (from a Louisiana newspaper) quoted:

The Winter 2006 edition of North Louisiana History, which is published by the North Louisiana Historical Association, has again presented some great research material in an nicely-formatted publication. It is published...by the North Louisiana Historical Association, Inc. of Shreveport. Emilia Gay Griffith Means is the editor. North Louisiana History contains pictures and maps. ..."
 * The association is merely a parenthetical clause, as said above. Do you have access to the full article? If so, please quote any other mentions of the association from that article so we can see it. I don't have access to The Advocate, but am relying on quotes put in the article by the author who inflated the sources and online previews. What I did do was search for it in LexisNexis and guess what? There are no hits for "North Louisiana Historical Association" in LexisNexis academic. Not one. Do you have access to B H Gilley's book? Because again what's quoted is trivial: "Then in 1952, the North Louisiana Historical Association was organized and a wealth of research has been written and preserved in its publications." That statement is hardly an academic analysis of it. Also look at the publisher of the book, "McGinty Trust Fund Publications" from Ruston, La. If you run that publisher through worldcat, you'll see that the book is one of only two published by "McGinty Trust Fund Publications". Which brings up, is the author a scholar or just a local writer? Is it self-published by him in Ruston, Louisiana, a small town of 20,000 people? Anyway, there are no previews of that book. If you know of any further mentions of it in the book beyond that trivial mention, please put quotes here.
 * Thus, you have one trivial mention of the association/names in a book from 1975, one trivial mention in a newspaper (that "has pictures") and a third trivial quote about preserving local history-- if you assume the book from Ruston is not self-published and assume the author is a scholar/expert). A local (self-published?) writer praising a local history association in one sentence is not "critical appraisal" by any stretch of the scholarly mind. I don't see how any of those pass GNG. Surely if it were notable you could do better than those for references and could find recent books, books by scholars and detailed, frequent mentions. But that is not the case. I'd like to remind readers the article was created by a now banned user as a platform to promote his obscure publications about the region. SalHamton (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Billy Hawkins Gilley was a professor of history at Louisiana Tech University. Upon closer inspection of the article I looked at on JSTOR (4233578), he appears to have been "active" in NLHA, so he is probably not independent. I apologise for missing that because I was in a hurry. That said, I would be perfectly happy to accept a bald statement that a publication is "good" as critical appraisal if the source has credentials.
 * If you don't have access to the rest of the article in The Advocate, you should not pass comment on what you imagine it does or does not contain. For the record, I don't have access either, but the length is stated in the preview and it is obviously devoted to this particular publication.
 * I am acting on the logic that praise directed at the journal is also praise directed at the association because the association produced the journal.
 * The article on the association was not written by User:Billy Hathorn for the purpose of promotion. It was written by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who writes lots of articles on lots of subjects.
 * I said in express words that my definition of "at length" includes "a page or so". I am not going to quote verbatim large chunks of what the book says because I don't want to risk infringing its copyright. When I ran inventive searches, I thought that I saw the association mentioned in both columns, so I assumed that it occupied the greater part of a page. Upon closer inspection, I now find that the reference in the other column was to the Louisiana Historical Society. That said, I am still happy with the paragraph or so that I have seen. James500 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't have access to the material then how can you say "you need to read the whole thing," and imply there is more too it? My assessment of the article's only newspaper source is based on the lengthy quote in the bottom, which shows a trivial mention. If there is more to it why didn't the editor that cite it add more? As for the Billy Hawkins Gilley: Independent or not, a historian or not, the quote from the (self-published?) book is a trivial mention.
 * As for Louisiana, the Pelican State, the 1975 book: The Association is NOT discussed "at length" or "a page or so". First as you admit, we (and others readers here) have the same access to the sources and what's available in google isn't "a page or so," it isn't even a full paragraph. The mention available, which others can see, is this trivial quote: "The North Louisiana Historical Association was organized in 1952 when Mrs. DH Perkins, Dr. AW Shaw, and a small group met at Centenary College in Shreveport...". Secondly, even if you can't click that link, you can see it is not mentioned on more than a page ("or so"), according to the index. If you have evidence it is part of a longer analysis, please quote the most relevant full paragraph for this AFD and show it isn't just trivial coverage. One paragraph in a 300+ page book is fair use, not a copyright violation. Don't imply there is more coverage than what's discussed or what you can bring here.
 * As for the creation of this: On 10 April 2011 the North Louisiana History article (started by Hathorn) was nominated for deletion. Then TWO DAYS LATER the North Louisiana Historical Association article was created on 12 April 2011 by Richard Arthur Norton, who participated in the AFD on 11 April 2011. Thus, this article was clearly started to keep the journal/association on Wikipedia because the editor was concerned it would be rightfully deleted as the original AFD dubbed it: "Unnotable local history publication published by an unnotable local history organization." Maybe someone who knows more about policy can say if this creation of this was a violation of policy?
 * Thus, you are pinning notability on a brief newspaper mention (that you don't have access to), a brief sentence of praise in a (likely self-published) book from someone connected to the organization and a book that mentions it in passing on one page out of nearly 400 pages about 40 years ago. SalHamton (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What is available on Google Books is more than the snippet you have linked to. It is follwed by this and this and the words "Association Journal". My definition of "at length" includes a passage the same length as that passage. I consider that passage to be substantial. I am sorry if you don't agree.
 * No. Those links point to two sentences in the same paragraph. It is NOT as you stated above "a page or so." It is one sentence about the Association, followed by a trivial mention about "briefly" publishing a bulletin and that is followed by another sentence about someone becoming editor. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I admitted that I made a small mistake about the length of the passage in question in this edit. Why do you keep going on about it when the point has already been conceded? And, for the last time, I do not agree that those three sentences are trivial. James500 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, you deleted your incorrect claim later on without mentioning that you changed it after people read it. Please make it clear by drawing a line through it. It's rather important that you were wrong about the scope of the coverage and it is it trivial, not long as you claimed above. SalHamton (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am astonished that you think that whether I draw a line through something, in addition to saying it was a mistake, will make any difference, but I will do it to keep you happy. James500 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If the organisation is so insignificant, why does Davis mention it at all? What the book contains looks like an entry in a listing of historical associations (with particular reference to Louisiana). Perhaps historical associations might be notable as a group. Perhaps WP:NOTESAL applies. Perhaps we could have a list of historical associations and merge this one into it.
 * Or if it is significant why dwell on a trivial portion on one page in a nearly 400 page book fom about 40 years ago? Why didn't he spend a chapter on the subject? A book? How come you can't find any subsequent mentions? The answer is because local history associations are a dime a dozen and they have little to do with the historical profession as practiced in academia. They are footnotes in major academic press, if mentioned at all. It is true in most cases and proven in this case. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we had to have a whole chapter, let alone a book, on a given subject, that would make it very difficult to write an article on anything. It would also result in very long articles (because their length would correspond to at least that of a chapter or a book). James500 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A "chapter" or "book, on a given subject, that would make it very difficult to write an article"? Did you seriously write this? SalHamton (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. James500 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, more sources are better. SalHamton (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snippet view won't let you see a whole chapter. If we required a whole chapter (instead of a collection of snippets), it might make it impossible for some editors to create new articles on some subjects. It might not be possible to identify the context of a snippet. James500 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've not to be kidding. There are other ways to get access to sources and tell if those sources are significant, including reading the book, looking at the index, seeing that it has been mentioned in more than one book. SalHamton (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Considerations of cost and difficulty only apply to people who want to delete articles and not to those who want to create them. I'm afraid I can't agree with that. James500 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. Your strawmans are dishonest. I'll quote myself: "There are other ways to get access to sources and tell if those sources are significant, including reading the book, looking at the index, seeing that it has been mentioned in more than one book." Libraries, for the record, loan books for free. If you have sources, let's see them. SalHamton (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "they are a dime a dozen" - Human beings are a dime a dozen. And we have over a million articles on them.
 * "they have little to do with the historical profession as practiced in academia" - It appears to me that Wikipedia is, rightly or wrongly, not confined to traditional academic subjects. You should see some of the stuff we let in under WP:ATHLETE. And the stuff on popular culture. James500 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * North Louisiana Historical Association publishes North Louisiana History and the wikipedia article claims it "is an academic journal (my emphasis added)." So it appears in this case, the Wikipedia article is about a subject that claims its academic and thus, should be treated accordingly. This article fails WP:NJournals. The Association was mentioned in ONE academic book in its entire history, nearly forty years ago. SalHamton (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:NJournals is only an essay. It is not policy. Accordingly the article on the journal can't "fail" WP:NJournals in any meaningful sense. Secondly, this AfD is not about the article on the journal. It is about the article on the Association. As the Association is not a journal, what NJournals does or does not say is completely beside the point as regards this AfD. James500 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's only an essay and you can ignore it if you so choose. You should realize, however, that it is much harder for an academic journal to qualify under WP:GNG as under NJournals. The only real "keep" argument for the journal was put forward by DGG and is based on NJournals, however, that argument would never fly under GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that the association claims to publish an "academic journal" is relevant in discussing whether the association has anything to do with academia. SalHamton (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that the book was published in 1975 is irrelevant. There does not have to be continuing coverage to establish notability. "Notability is not temporary". See WP:NOTTEMP. Many Wikipedia articles contain large chunks of material taken directly from the Eleventh Edition of Britannica (published in 1911) and the Dictionary of National Biography (published in 1885). In fact, many articles consist entirely of such sources. 1975 is very recent by our present standards.
 * WP:GNG says topic is notable if "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You have two sources: 1) A book from 1975, which mentions it in one paragraph in 1975 and 2) A local newspaper article that mentions the association in the clause. The one book from 1975 and one local article from 2006 does not make it notable, thus NOTTEMP does not apply. SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you really not get the point about the date? If something is notable there should be multiple sources throughout the decades. That you are fixated on a trivial mention from 40 years shows its not notable. If you have more or better sources please bring them to the table. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMP says that that is absolutely not necessary. In any event, we have two sources published respectively thirteen and fifty-four years after the creation of the association. If we had sources only from 1952, your argument might make sense. But that is not the case. James500 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really not understand the point? You have NO references before that 1975 book and only one trivial (newspaper) mention since. That is why the date is mentioned. Neither sources include "significant" coverage. Thus, it fails GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GNG expects "multiple" sources. It does not say two or more trivial sources. SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As regards the newspaper, I can say "you need to read the whole thing" because you are supposed to. The fact that the rest of the article is behind a paywall is irrelevant. Sources are not required to be free. They are not even required to be on the internet. You could try to find someone who has access to read the rest of that article. Or you could just pay the Piper. What you can't do is come here and say "let's ignore the rest of the article because it isn't free". To put it another way, I don't have to say that the rest of the article contains something. You are supposed to tell me that you have looked at it and you have found that it doesn't.
 * You implied there is more to it. If there is something more then the onus is on you to prove it. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second sentence: Says who? Why should I have to pay good money just to stop you from deleting stuff? James500 (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Logic. Specifically, deduction puts on the onus on proving a positive. No one can prove a negative. If there is something more let's see it. SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of Articles for deletion is that you, as nominator, are supposed to have checked the whole of the newspaper article, to see whether there is anything else there, before nominating the Wikipedia article for deletion for lack of sources. 10:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you cared to read Articles for deletion, it says in part: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." As I wrote above in two different locations: "I actually looked this subject up in several databases before nominating the article. I used academic search engines and archival news sources." On what grounds do you assume an editor left out a fuller mention from that single newspaper mention? AFDs don't require an editor to use give their credit card to a third party and pay $4 for an article because you assume there might be more to an article that what is cited. Either you can source there are more sources or not. SalHamton (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) The "minimum" only applies where there are no reliable sources in the article to begin with. If sources do appear (as in this case) the nominator is supposed to actually look at them ("If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient" etc; my emphasis). (2) Sources are not required to be free. AfD nominations are not an exception to that. James500 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say it is required to be free? Where did I say I only did the "minimum"? Can you stick to the point and stop changing the subject? I read what was cited in the wiki article and searched several academic databases and found ZERO mentions. That includes reading the quotes from the article, including the one newspaper mention. I concluded, based on the quotes available (the association receives a mention in a parenthetical clause) that it is trivial newspaper mention. Now, if you want to imply there is more in the article about the association then either offer proof or move on. SalHamton (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if you want to "imply" that the rest of the newspaper article doesn't contain something, assert that you have actually read the whole of the article or "move on". That is how this process works. James500 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am judging notability based on databases searched, books searched and what's in the article. It could be there is a book about this written by aliens from the Mars. WP:ONUS If you want something in the article then YOU must supply evidence for it. You can claim there is book about this topic on Mars that I don't have access to, but that gets us nowhere. I can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. That's how this works. SalHamton (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, WP:ONUS applies to question of whether any given material can included in the most recent revision of an article. It does not apply to the question of whether that article should exist in the first place. It doesn't even apply to revision deletion. The reason for the difference is that anyone can look at the page history of an article, but only a sysop can look at a page that has been deleted, or a revision that has been "revision deleted". (For the avoidance of doubt, we have WP:BLP etc to fill the obvious hole this leaves). James500 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:ONUS is about the content and sources in the article, which is what I'm focused on after searching several databases and finding nothing on this subject. SalHamton (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "If there is more to it why didn't the editor that cite it add more?" Possibly because he was not prepared to pay to look at the rest of it.
 * Or it could be the editor did have access to the full article and post everything that was relevant? SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that this sort of speculation is pointless. James500 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, you speculated first and again on justifying the absence of quotes. You speculated that there might be more to the source that proves its notable. Show me there is more or move on. SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If the newspaper article says that the association has done something "excellent", I don't consider that to be trivial.
 * Sorry, but local charities, individuals and businesses do "excellent" work which get mentioned in a local newspaper. However, that does not meet GNG. Very telling the paper didn't published any articles before or since. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that your interpretation of GNG is correct. James500 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says topic is notable if "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You have two sources: 1) A book from 1975, which mentions it in three sentences in 1975 and 2) A local newspaper article that mentions the association in the clause. Even if the two sources covered its history in detail (which they don't), GNG expects "multiple." Two trivial mentions are not notable or classify as "multiple." SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the word "multiple" literally means more than one. And two is definitely more than one. James500 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is probably academic now, but if B H Gilley was reliable, and I admit that that is, erm, doubtful, the praise he gives the association would not be trivial.
 * Well, that is a big "if" as its likely self-published by someone with a link to the association. That we're even discussing this as a possible source shows how unnotable this is. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again the point has already been conceded. James500 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You should assume that Richard Arthur Norton created this article in good faith. In any event, even if the article was created by a dedicated spammer, that does not actually affect the notability of the article's subject, which has to be determined by looking for sources on that subject.
 * The article was created the day after he voted in the AFD, which was the second day of the AFD discussion. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but it is irrelevant. This is an AfD debate. It is not an RFC on the behaviour of the user who created the article. Wrong forum. James500 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An article we are currently discussing that was created during a previous AFD of an article we are also discussing is relevant to the current AFD for both of those articles. SalHamton (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could only answer you by repeating what I have already said. James500 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you suggest that I am not familiar with policy, I will ultimately just respond with WP:IAR. James500 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this article, merge the journal article into it, enough to pass GNG per James500'.  We have room for one article about this legitimate historical society and its activities. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  I'm going to change to weak keep. The sources are minimal, and it might be better to merge this to a list article or something like that, but in the absence of that, this might be a legitimate article. it needs lots of cleanup, though, some sources are bogus, most or all of the "quotes" need to go. The journal could be briefly mentioned here in one line, but being thoroughly non-notable, it should certainly not get a whole section. --Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm going back to neutral. Sal is going a bit overboard in some comments, but does have a very strong point about the paucity (and possible inadequacy) of the sources. There is indeed not much to build an article on. --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep cleanup per Randykitty. Just like a bishop doesn't need the same level of coverage as a band in order for it to be significant coverage, an historical association's coverage doesn't need to be as extensive in order to be significant. --Bejnar (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree the sourcing is bad and want to "merge this to a list article"? (Which is similar James500's suggestion: "Perhaps we could have a list of historical associations and merge this one into it.") SalHamton (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep (changed, see above). Having read the discussion above, I'm willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt on notability. The article on the association's journal (also nominated for deletion) should be merged into this article this article. --Boson (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is that if the Association has found its way into a proper history book, it ought to be included somewhere. I would be looking for a suitable target for merger, not talking about deletion. Even if the sources do not justify a separate article, they will justify a redirect. We do in fact have an articles on North Louisiana and the History of Louisiana. James500 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you concede all that supports this article is a single book mention with was three trivial sentences (see above) out of nearly 400 pages about 40 years ago. If anything this belongs more with History of Louisiana than any other merge. But that it is a stretch to think that mention warrants a redirect at all. SalHamton (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) I haven't forgotten about the newspaper article. (2) Redirects are cheap. James500 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The local article you: 1) don't have full access to and 2) that the quoted portion, which only mentions it in trivial/non-significant a parenthetical clause. SalHamton (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving to keep per User:DGG. James500 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though you can only reference a mere two sources that give trivial mention to association. Got it.
 * I wish you made it equally as clear that your claims above about the sources were false. You falsely claimed the coverage was a page "or so" when it was a sentence and don't have access to the newspaper article and so you can't contest it is just one sentence of the article. This is rather important because, as you know, your false claims encouraged people, including Randykitty, Arxiloxos and Boson to move to keep. Rather, that point out your error, you slyly made a quiet edit instead of drawing a line through it and pointing out your error. SalHamton (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * weak Keep I said keep on the journal, as I did on it's previous AfD, because — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * It seems DGG made an editing error and voted twice (above and below). SalHamton (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As I said at the previous AfD, because it meets the basic requirement for journals, which is being included in the major subject indexing services (in this case, America History and Life, & Historical abstracts.) We could  merge to an article about the association, which is usually how we handle borderline journals , but  the journal can be more easily seen to be notable because of the indexing. All the rest of the discussion about a particular former WP editor is besides the point entirely. I rather frequently said !delete with respect to his articles here at WP , but that was not because I thought  his material of low quality, but, as I told him frequently,  because he should do what was suited to his material, publish it in proper academic journals.   DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you post the same vote/reasoning in other AFD as you did here? You want to keep both articles for the same reason? None of what you said relates to the GNG requirements. GNG requires: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This, at best, is three sentences in a nearly forty year old book and a local newspaper that refers to the Association in a clause. As for the abstracting, that is sourced to the journal itself, so even that trivial detail isn't even independent. Sorry, but if the academic community isn't citing it then it isn't a notable "academic journal". It is merely an unnotable local publication. SalHamton (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment In spite of the claim that Billy Hathorn created this page; and in spite of the claim that Richard Arthur Norton created this page; I, Unscintillating, created this page.  As DGG says, the journal is more notable than the association.  Most of the material in this article continues to be covered at North Louisiana History.  Merging this article back to North Louisiana History would be a small task, quite unlike merging the journal article here.  Page view statistics show that the journal is getting 4 hits per day, twice as many as the association is getting.  I don't really have an opinion between keeping this article or merging it back to North Louisiana History, but to merge North Louisiana History here seems to me to create an editorial burden without a compelling reason for doing so, and therefore a WP:Bureaucracy improper use of AfD.  I have stated a "keep" opinion at the AfD for North Louisiana History.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You created a redirect during the last afd, but Richard Arthur Norton turned in into an article with this edit. As you recall from your previous involvement, this happened as the AFD of the journal was going on. SalHamton (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note There was a previous [claim] to this article having been nominated for deletion, but the claim was rejected by the closing administrator.  I have added a listify navbox which shows both the AfD with this claim and the currently related AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Above James500 claimed that a scholarly book had a "page or so" about this organization and a newspaper had coverage about the association, which "are not trivial." Three people changed their delete votes or cited keep based on those statements. As noted above, the 400 page book mentions the association in ONE trivial sentence. James500's statement was false. Whereas, James500 did not read the newspaper article and admitted he doesn't have access to it. All that is in Wikipedia from that single newspaper article is the association mentioned was a parenthetical clause in one sentence; as discussed in detail above. James500 opted not to cross a line through his statements, but edited them after those changes, drawing no attention to his erroneous remarks about sources despite people basing their votes on his false statements. Additionally, Unscintillating and DGG were part of the previous AFD and have not supplied any independent secondary sources that demonstrate "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. In the two years since its creation during an AFD for the journal that the association issues, there has been no improvement in the article or availability of sources: One sentence in a nearly 40 year old book and one parenthetical clause from a local article about the association. SalHamton (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The record above shows that you've stated:
 * Both the North Louisiana Historical Association and its journal North Louisiana History are nominated. They were both created by User:Billy Hathorn... SalHamton (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...the North Louisiana Historical Association was created on 12 April 2011 by person who voted keep in the AFD on 11 April 2011. SalHamton (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [Unscintillating] created a redirect during the last afd, but Richard Arthur Norton turned in into an article with this edit. SalHamton (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You now have three current but conflicting statements in this AfD as to who "created" the North Louisiana Historical Association page. Are you going to redact any of those statements?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I and several others have grown tired of your semantics and wiki-lawyering. The North Louisiana History article was created by Hathorn, a now banned self-promoter who was blocked for copyright violations and creating unnotable articles despite his warnings. On 10 April 2011 the North Louisiana History article was nominated for deletion and two days later Richard Arthur Norton created the North Louisiana Historical Association on 12 April 2011, who voted keep in the AFD on 11 April 2011. Now, if you want to debate semantics and wikilawyer about "created vs created from a redirect" or "started vs started from a redirect" that's fine. Yet, it does not move this AFD forward, it doesn't prove the article should be kept, it does not prove significant coverage and it certainly doesn't make the association notable.
 * In the last two years and this current AFD, you could have focused your energy on adding sources, discussing specific sources, addressing the quality of sources. But what did you do instead? You played semantics and wikilawyered.
 * For example, there was a link on the page to a database with a comment about how many search results were returned. I removed it pointing out it does not belong. What did you do? Add a source to the article? Show a reference that makes it notable? No, you did not. You reverted it then another user (not me) removed it, so you added it again and it was removed for third time. Did you stop? Of course, not and and so you inserted it yet again and then another person agreed with its removal writing, "does not help readers at all". So a administrator warns you about edit-warring. Did you stop and add sources to the article? No, you accused the administrator of "referencectomy". The administrator then actually recommends you do something useful, maybe finding an actual reference? Did you? No, you take your case to the the noticeboard discussion where you are told among other things by people not involved: "search results is not a reference as you have been repeatedly told, and is a breach of WP:EL and WP:EL." At that point, did you stop arguing and supply secondary sources? No, you went full-bore with incomprehensible wikilaywering. Another editor points out that you "replied with wall-of-text wikilawyering. Links in an article to search results are not acceptable.  The removal was justified." Still another editor says: ": it's not a good reference, the removal was legitimate, and your repetitive reverting to readd it even if the removal was incorrect falls within the ambit of WP:3RR." Did you stop? Did you accept that maybe your addition was wrong? Well, of course not! You then come to the journal's AFD, voting keep. Did you give specific sources? Well, no. You talked about google hits in scholar and then accused me removing references. Did you mention I removed it once and you were reverted three times by other people as well as every administrator at the notice board said I was correct to remove and you were wrong? Nope. Did you mention your addition/reverts violates WP:EL and WP:EL? Nope.
 * In response, what did you do? Did you actually find a single relevant specific source to show the North Louisiana Historical Association is notable? No, you came here and talked about page views and played semantics. With all the energy, why can't you actually post sources to show its notable? Because there are no sources to show that? Where does that leave the article? With the same two trivial secondary source mentions that were put there in 2011. Indeed, aside from a bot, a disambiguation and a category change, last true edit was 20 July 2011‎, which added a date. SalHamton (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point remains that you wanted an editor to "cross out" text, but you don't show that you are willing to do so yourself. Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyer all you want with a wall of incomprensible text (below). But there is a difference between creating a redirect and creating an article. SalHamton (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, here is the disputed citation, first removed here.  :*
 * Note that in addition to the evidence of 103 other articles, there is specific evidence of an article in the Ruston Daily Leader dated May 12, 1977. Someday, either someone in Ruston will go to a library, or someone will spend $19.95 to find out what is in this archive.  There is WP:NO DEADLINE at Wikipedia.  Meanwhile, there is one specific article about which we have additional information.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NRVE states, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NRVE refers to WP:V. As you were told in the noticeboard discussion by adminstrators: "How can you possibly claim those results are WP:Verifying the article when they are behind a paywall and you haven't read them? They might do, but really, you have no more idea whether they do than me." Again, you've add no sources in two years beyond two trivial mentions. SalHamton (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What WP:NRVE says using the WP:V link is "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The key word there is "evidence".  Part of the evidence that you removed from the article would appear in a cite newspaper template thusly:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that as per the discussion at [WT:Citing sources#Is an entry in the "Further reading" section called a "reference"?], an entry in a "Further reading" section is better referred to as a "citation", even though "reference" is technically correct.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "technically correct"? Every single administrator told you were wrong. It is a breach of WP:EL and WP:EL. SalHamton (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said "technically correct", and my statement based on the source provided stands. The point in the second sentence needs no response.  The point in the third sentence has been previously discussed and is irrelevant to the issue of whether an entry in a "Further reading" section is called a "citation" or a "reference".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - academic and historical journals may not show up on Google 80 million times (which has very much a pop culture/recency bias anyway) but are nevertheless important publications. polarscribe (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Polarscribe, please note that for academic subjects (journals, scientists, etc), we generally use Google Scholar, which is specialized in these subjects and has not the pop culture/recency basis of Google itself that you quite justifiably point to. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of Google Scholar. We have articles on every garbage Internet meme that ever existed for 5 seconds on ICanHazCheezburgr and 5,000-word retellings of every breathlessly-overreported tabloid-sleaze murder case of the last decade. If we're looking to start a crusade to eradicate unnecessary articles on the encyclopedia, I can think of a million or so that are less important and more disposable than a brief description of a longstanding historical journal. polarscribe (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - An article from the journal is cited in the Harvard Guide to African-American History, published in 2001. polarscribe (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That link is to one line a literally six hundred page bibliography. Is there something more in that book I'm missing? Because I don't doubt this Association exists, I doubt it meets GNG with non-trivial coverage? SalHamton (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is borderline, but I think that the sources are good enough to push this over the WP:GNG line. No objection to merging the article on the org and the journal together.  I also find the badgering of "Keep" voters by the nominator to be somewhat unbecoming.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Sorry, but a user claimed a book had a "page or so" about the association and that a newspaper article had more than a trivial mention. Three people changed their votes or cited to keep it based on those statements. Those statements are false, as that user has now admitted. Two other people were part of the Journal's AFD two years ago, who wanted to maintain the article. SalHamton (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not admitted that the newspaper article contains only a trivial mention. I expressly said that I considered a bald statement that something is "good" to be non-trivial. James500 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2013 (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.