Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

North Louisiana History

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnotable local history publication published by an unnotable local history organization. Lacks affiliation to a university as well.

This article was created as sheer self-promotion and to promote local religious organizations. This article was created by who authored the article:  "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010)." This same user created Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, L. L. Clover, and Jimmy G. Tharpe, which all source that same North Louisiana History and it is the sole "independent" article to prove notablity of Clover and Tharpe articles are Billy's article. These appear to be merely local pastors with no notable sources and should be brought to AFD. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this AFD started, a Richard Arthur Norton has started building a wikipedia article at North Louisiana Historical Association (the local history organization that publishes the above), which is also being listed for deletion in this AFD. This organization fails WP:ORG. It is NOT to be confused with the Louisiana Historical Association, which is completely separate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable publication. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep North Louisiana History is loosely affiliated with Louisiana State University in Shreveport, where the back articles are on file, and formerly with Louisiana Tech University. It has been around for some forty years. Much of the contents is written by professional historians. I would think all historical publications would be "notable", particularly those publishing materials by professional historians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This user created the article for the reasons stated above. I dispute two false claims the creator of this article said. Academic publications are directly tied to a university of university press. University of California Press, for example, publishes 54 journals, but that by itself doesn't make those journals notable. The fact that Louisiana State University in Shreveport keeps copies on its shelf doesn't make it affiliated, academic or even notable.
 * Secondly, regional historical associations accept work by amateur historians (people who aren't professionals) interested in local history. For example, this publication will publish people's personal stories, which is hardly academic. Professional historians are people who spent years learning the profession and earned graduate degrees in the methodology. It's obvious, but being more than forty years old doesn't mean its notable. The fact that its so old and there aren't any sources, demonstrate it isn't notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Loose affiliations does not reliable sources make.  "Notability" is not a factor of how you or I define it, it is how it is outlined in WP:Notability.  Who it is written by is not the issue or a criteria for Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit").  The issue is singularly whether or not the subject matter of the article can objectively meet the criteria for inclusion.  I understand that this article was created by you, and you feel an affinity for it, but that alone doesn't make it notable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also delete redirect North Louisiana Historical Association, which was created a few minutes ago along with some changes to the article. 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaeyyn89 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep - A third deletion nomination by the same editor who is simultaneously seeking elimination of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary and L. L. Clover. Wikipedia would be the weaker if any of these challenges succeed, in my estimation. North Louisiana History is the journal of the NORTH LOUISIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I can't think of a single rational reason why an article on that journal does not belong in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The creator of this article solicited/canvassed this vote. 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * False claim - I did not solicit Carrite's response but thanked him for his favorable comment on my behalf. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I confirm this. Don't be so quick to cast aspersions, please. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Please tell that's a joke given what you wrote here or here.
 * When I get followed from AFD to AFD by the same group of people who want to keep the articles created by the same user who has a history of creating unnotable articles (see: Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn--warned by the community to stop doing that), and they comment claiming deletion is part of a "anti-Christian bias" (Billy Hathron and Carrite 1 2 3). Then they appear on my AFDs, talking not about sourcing or actual policy, it looks like this is a canvassing on my AFDs. Meanwhile they ignore that this whole time only one secondary source on this has been written in the last 60 years-- a brief mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what you are seeing. Try this search on Google scholar and tell me if you get 129 citations: ["North Louisiana History" OR "Journal of the North Louisiana Historical Association" OR "North Louisiana Historical Association journal" OR "Journal (North Louisiana Historical Association)" OR "Journal / North La. Hist. Assoc."].  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, if you click the link above for google scholar or search for "North Louisiana History" in quote for google scholar you get 17 hits: Not a single one refer to his journal or association, but simply refer to north Louisiana history in general. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got only 93, but the first couple pages of hits were articles that had appeared in the journal (under whatever name). There were only a couple of actual citations of articles in that journal by articles in other journals, and I gave up looking through them before I found a journal _outside_ LA that cited one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now, thank you. My results and conclusions are somewhat different.  I agree that the first 30 hits include 25 that are self-referential citations.  Looking at the rest of the citations, I find 13 books, and 38 journal citations in 25 different journals.  Under Notability (media) Point 4, given frequent citations which I would consider these to be, I conclude that "Notability is presumed".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This number of citations would be miles removed from what would make a single academic notable. For a journal, this is an absolutely minimal number of citations. Most academic journals get this number of citations in a single week, not over their lifetime. This is not "frequent", it is "very occasionally". As an aside, I find most "keep" arguments here rather lacking in substance. --Crusio (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for "miles removed" and "lacking in substance"? As it stands, I find that your statement is free-floating opinion.  On the other hand, my statement that there are 50 Google scholar citations quantifiably refutes the statement, "Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work."  Do you think that the closing admin should assign any of the delete positions greater than zero weight?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is based on several years of experience with the WikiProject Journals and discussions around WP:PROF. 50 GS cites would result in a speedy snow delete decision (in the absence of anything else) if it were an academic. We may expect more from a journal. Given that no evidence of notability seems to be forthcoming (and given that just 50 GS cites is, IMHO, evidence of the opposite), I'm going to !vote Delete here. --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no references given for the assertion that 50 Google scholar cites is cause for a speedy deletion. I also reviewed WP:Speedy deletion and believe that this claim is (to use a term from there) "patent nonsense".  Regarding the implied and more-relevant but still undocumented idea for AfD, the explanation does not factor the availability of the magazine.  For example, the Journal of Physics (if there is such a journal) is probably available in more libraries and will get more citations than North Louisiana History journal.  This also relates to Notability (media) which explicitly mentions journals serving "niche markets" as having a presumption of notability.  Nor has respondent refuted the presumption of notability that the NLH journal has a "significant history", nor the presumption of notability in that the NLH journal has an "historic purpose".  Regarding respondent's implied claim to represent Wikipedia norms, see Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice which was kept with one Google scholar citation and one newspaper article (and don't bother looking for The Vancouver Voice in Trove at the National Library of Australia because it is not there, and Worldcat doesn't know when The Vancouver Voice started publishing).  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "speedy" here in the sense of "very fast", not CSD. As for the Vancouver Voice, I'm amazed that that one was kept, but this falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As for refuting things: it's extremely difficult to show that something is not notable, as the proof is in the negative (i.e., no sources can be found). However, the procedure here is that those who argue for "keep" produce evidence that a subject is notable, not the other way around. And up till now, I am not impressed at all with the "evidence" that has been produced. The comparison with the newspaper is incorrect. Newspapers indeed do not often cite each other (I guess), but academic journals do that all the time, hence 50 GS cites is a trivial amount. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are here to discuss notability, not popularity–IMO the null hypothesis that North Louisiana History is not notable is not sustainable: given proper citing by the worldwide library systems including Worldcat, ongoing abstracting published in two outside references, academic support with public money through LSUS in the form of office space and library shelving and a web page with a listing of archives, routine citations (50 known from Google alone) by 40 outside sources, the fact that articles published there are WP:RS, the idea that readers would not be able to look up this journal in Wikipedia, and that editors would not be able to Wikilink this journal when using articles published there. For those who want policy citations for this statement, these ideas are discussed in WP:UCS.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed the null hypothesis and it is up to those who argue otherwise to produce evidence of the contrary. WorldCat listing is absolutely not a sign of notability, however. The inclusion in Historical Abstracts and America, History and Life is possibly different, if it can be shown that these are major, selective databases. If they are and this journal is indeed included, i'll change my vote to keep, but for the moment I stay with the delete. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Crusio's delete rationale. It's a good point, which why I search for this publications articles in those indexes. Nothing came up, as I wrote below and the talk page more than a week ago here Talk:North Louisiana History. Thus, can those who want to keep the article provide an independent source for the claim "ongoing abstracting published in two outside references" or prove "academic support with public money through LSUS from office space." These are wild, unspported claims. We need independent secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep easily meets GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said to you before, an AFD is not a vote. Name one independent non-trival secondary source this has discussed in. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * List of North Louisiana History articles (1970-1995) can be obtained at http://nwla-archives.org/indexes/nlhas.htm Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How does that help meet WP:BOOK or WP:ORG? Just because you wrote for this publication and chose to create this wikipedia article to promote your work, doesn't make this notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Previously nominator disputes as a "false claim" that LSUS is "loosely affiliated". I don't think nominator can have it both ways, either LSUS is affiliated with the journal, or LSUS is an independent secondary third-party reliable source.  Either way, the Noel Memorial Library special collection website source is an indication of notability for North Louisiana History.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what your point is. Maybe you can explain it? Academic journals are published by academic presses. This is not published by an academic press or even a publishing house. As ill-defined as a claim of "loosely affiliated" is, there is no evidence of it. Unless you're claiming a 16 year out of date index is proof of being "loosely affiliated." Are you? In that case all research libraries are "loosely affiliated" with the NY Times too for keeping the NY Times indexes.
 * But let's, for the sake of argument, say this local publication is "loosely affiliated" with a university. So what? The fact that its own "loose affiliation" hasn't even bothered to update an index about it in 16 years proves just how unremarkable this publication is. Furthermore, it just means that everyone who want to keep this article doesn't have secondary sources to demonstrate notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would be good to have the list of articles updated since 1995. I have no idea why that has not been done. If one looks through the list of articles in North Louisiana History there are several dozen that have separate Wikipedia articles now. So that fact should show notability. Robert Russ, Robert F. Kennon, Shreveport, Louisiana, Hubert D. Humphreys, John D. Winters, many more. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you created them too in order to promote yourself! You added yourself to Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (now deleted), Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.") And even more pathetically, for example, he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis!
 * Also your references, as adminstrator expects will be removed.


 * New comment: I am not familiar with the "en.wikipedia.org" source mentioned above, and I rarely use such a reference; didn't know I ever had, actually. Many of the notable alumni lists require notation, and that explains the sourcing of "List of Southern Methodist University people." Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing adminstrator should take note of the RFC about this user creating unnotable articles here: Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Refutation: None of the list that you cite above is non-notable. Any state legislator qualifies for Wikipedia under the rules, and most of that list have gone beyond legislatures. I did not create all of those article but added information to some of them and had to give the source when I added new information. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New comment The above is a different list, and I stand by the content of each article; show what is in error with any of them, and I will make corrections. Many of these cited above are not in North Louisiana History.. There are many in North Louisiana History who have their own Wikipedia article even if the NLH article is not cited in their biographies. This demonstrates that much of what is in NLH is "notable." If there was, for instance, a Journal of South Missouri History, would you asssume that it too is not notable? Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Another comment Theses and dissertations (secondary works) are valid sources in any historical journal and are even encouraged. If there is something incorrect in any source, it is the responsibility of the author to ferret out the error and make adjustment. If the author writes a falsehood from what he thought is a valid source, he is still correct, because his information he had was presumed valid, and he has cited the source. Family-supplied obituaries (also secondary works) in newspapers (primary sources) are also presumed valid; I have found only one flagrant obituary error in the past five years that I have written for Wikipedia, and I believe that error came from a family misperception about the occupation of the deceased, not deliberate falsehood. Someone disparaged a "35-year old obituary" as an unreliable source; well, that is when the person died! Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The title of the webpage is "Archives - North Louisiana Historical Association Index, 1970-2005 (by Subject)". FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Libraries archive publications they receive. That's what they do with them. Individual issues get bound in larger volumes for researchers and shelf-space. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at Robert F. Kennon, but it does not cite North Louisiana History or one of its predecessors. I think it is a mis-connect to say that because the journal reports on notable topics, that the journal is therefore "worthy of notice".  This is an associational study, and studies showing a statistical association do not show causality.  I would agree that if this is all we knew about the notability of the journal it would be a reason to justify more research and to expect to find verifiable evidence of the journal being worthy of notice or attracting notice.  In this case, we already have verifiable evidence both that the journal is "worthy of notice" and that it "attracts notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic satisfies Notability (media) under points 2a, 2b, 4, and 5, each of which creates a "presumption of notability".
 * 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
 * 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
 * 5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

Nominator's opening statement that this is a local journal is refuted by being documented by the National Library of Australia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources for this publication leaving a "historic purpose or have a significant history"? Sources for being "frequently cited by other reliable sources" Sources that this is "non-trivial niche markets"? You can't assert this without proof. You provide some sources and I'll withdrawal the AFD. It's simple.
 * That a nation's archive would archive an obscure publication is not surprising. That's what a national archive does! They track down or are given (through several methods) an obscure publication for the country and archive it for scholars. That's why the National Library of Australia has racist publications from obscure, unnotable American groups too. For the record, an academic press would produce about 1000 copies of a book and research libraries and national archives throughout the world would buy it because its from an academic press. That's even for scholarly books that are rarely reviewed and have no academic impact. The fact that this doesn't even fall within these guidelines and you citing its existence in a library does not prove it notable. On the contrary, it shows how hard you've looked for sources, can't find them and don't understand library holdings and archival purposes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To make my point by example: one the obscure things the National Library of Australia has is issues of the newsletter published by the Florida Conservation Foundation. Will you also claim this organization's newsletter is a notable publication and create a wiki article on it. Because a library has it doesn't mean its notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New comment I would not object to an article on Florida Conservation Foundation, or North Carolina Conservation Foundation, for that matter, though I am unfamiliar with this organization and would not likely be contributing to said article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm seeing a lot of assumption as to "because it is a newspaper, it is notable" and "it is in a library in Australia", and "serving non-trivial niche markets" (without proof) and I'm sure the intent is honorable, but those are not accepted "proofs" of notability. I understand it is a contentious AFD, but it seems like there is a lot of grasping at straws, assuming and conjecture, but very little (read: none) actual verification of notability.  Seriously, when you have to go so broad as to make a claim that because a library in Australia has a copy, this tends to reinforce the idea that no verifiable sources DO exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is difficult here to respond to all of the rhetoric.  The nominator has been warned by people in current AfDs and on his/her talk page to tone it down.  What more is there to say to someone that rather than agree that it was incorrect to say that the journal was "local", brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really see any need to start calling people racist in this AFD. I commented on his talk page about him simply getting a bit overzealous, which is a common mistake, but I agree with his conclusions that the article isn't notable and surely that doesn't make me a racist.  Saying it is a "local" paper (ie: no widespread appeal outside of the general locale) alone is not enough reason to make such claims, and I would dare say is bordering on being uncivil.  Everyone would do good to tone down the rhetoric and simply look at the facts.  We can disagree on the facts without throwing around labels.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give your diffs that have examples of "calling people racist in this AFD" Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD. above introduced the concept into the AFD, which is essentially the equivalent of invoking Godwin's Law, so I fail to see how any additional comments will add clarity to the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New Comment: There are several NLH articles dealing with blacks, desegregation, etc. Here is one from 2004: Example: NAACP in LA

"We Are But Americans: Ms. Georgia M. Johnson," Sartain, Lee. Vol.35, No.2,3, Spring-Summer 2004 108-134 Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Billy, what's that have to do with the article? I hope you're not trying to imply anyone who wants this deleted is racist.
 * Can we focus on how this article suffers from a lack of third-party sources and nothing in the article demonstrates notablity? I added the third-party needed tag because everything that's been added are links to libraries that shows this publication exists. No one doubts it exists. The debate is on how there aren't sources demonstrating this is significant to include on wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New comment: The diverse listings of articles printed in North Louisiana History demonstrate its notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and SarekOfVulcan Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Request:Before this article is deleted, can we see if any other historical journals have been similarly dropped from Wikipedia? And if so, why? Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that has to do with anything here... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It is helpful to know if deleting historical journals is a common practice, or is just this one being singled out? Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Follow-up Has any other historical journal been deleted? The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate 2006 article is right about three editions per year. About 2008, the publication was reduced to twice annually. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply yes, other local history organizations more than 50 years old with a publication have been deleted because there aren't secondary sources showing notablity, see: Articles for deletion/Hayward Area Historical Society. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 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.) That's a reasonable standard applicable to all disciplines, and is essentially the equivalent of "significant 3rd party coverage"   At worst, merge to an article about the association, which is how we have sometimes handled marginal journals.   DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This seems like a very reasonable take on this. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched both those databases and found no evidence of that. That means the NLH website and the 1998 catalog listing is wrong and/or out of date. Furthermore, we don't have an independent source to verify this publication is abstracted by those indexes. In fact regarding this issue, I left a tag on the article (which was removed) and mentioned on the talk page here: Talk:North Louisiana History a week ago. I received no reply.
 * Also that 1998 reference (#15) is used three times in the article says the publication is quarterly. The wikipedia article says it comes out three times a year. The creator of the article says it comes out twice a year. Which is correct? You need secondary sources to have an article on a subject, not out of date library listings. That is why there is a guideline for notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This AfD should have been closed 24 hours ago, might I suggest that an admin close this ASAP as a No consensus since the discussion has been disrupted by a personal attack with racism added, such that further discussion is itself tending to disruption.  The article has been greatly improved during this time, so while a "No consensus" could be challenged again with another AfD, the article is not now and would not then be a weak article in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How so? There are two AFDs. In sheer votes (which an AFD is not it is 5-including nom- to 5 keeps, including the creator of this article and another creator of the Association's article. Or take out involved parties, 4 to 3 in favor of deletion). All but one of the keep votes, having been from people who have been following me from AFD to AFD.


 * Furthermore, the status of sourcing hasn't changed and doesn't support the claims of those who want to keep. Despite repeatedly inquiries for sources, one secondary source has not proven notablity for either (or both). Posting a link that a library has catalog a former publication "news letter" and another called it "newsletter" hardly merits WP:BOOK.
 * The fact that this has been published for so many decades and merited one mention in a local paper speaks volumes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Someone keeps saying that NLH is published three times a year. No, it is now twice a year. That change was made in 2008 or so. It is Winter/Spring and Summer/Fall. For instance, Summer/Fall 2010 is Vol. XLI (Nos. 3-4). Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Sources on this are scant, hence the all links to library catalogs. Secondary sources, in the last six decades, are close to nil--one mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all; I have the most recent copy before me, Vol. XLI, Nos. 3-4, Summer-Fall 2010. It is now published twice a year. The board of directors met on April 17, 2010, and again on May 11, 2010, the latter at the Shreve Memorial Library, Brooadmoor Branch. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the point here is that you can't add the "fact" that it is published twice a year based on your having a copy in your hands. That is defacto the definition of original research, which is prohibited.  That is why a citation is required.  That has been a concern with articles you write, based on your books, etc.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Oh, come on now, be FAIR. If a journal is published twice a year instead of three times a year, and the dude has a copy in front of him that says it's published twice a year, it's not "original research" for him to make a note of the FACT. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply This is ridiculous. The article has been here for nearly a year and the creator has to reference the publication itself and two meetings of the organization (the definition of WP:OR) from last year, to claim to know the publication rate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the publication itself gives its publication rate, that may be WP:PRIMARY but certainly not WP:OR. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'll be of service: this should close as NO CONSENSUS. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask again: What secondary sources about this publication and/or organization (there are two AFDs) do you have that demonstrate notablity? As discussed above, the citation for how many issues get published is the publication itself. Links to library catalogs do not demonstrate notablity. If this publication is so rich and relevant to wikipedia readers why haven't people/scholars written about it? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to ignore the article in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked above for secondary sourceS, plural. Guidelines expect more than one non-trival secondary source. I am not ignoring the single local newspaper coverage from years ago. However, that alone doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:BOOK because you need sourceS to build an article. Furthermore, the quote in that article is "It is published three times a year by the North Louisiana Historical Association, Inc. of Shreveport." The creator of the article says its published only twice. We don't have any secondary sourcing that can accurately describe important matters like how many times this gets published or relevance to society. If it isn't notable for newspapers or academics, it isn't notable for wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was scheduled to be processed by an admin 48 hours ago.  24 hours ago I asked that it be closed as "No consensus" for complex reasons that included the risk of an admin keeping the AfD open for another 7 days.  Instead we remain in limbo.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel that it is bad form to tell the closing admin how this should be closed. The admin will weigh the arguments (not count the !votes, mind you) and make up his/her own mind. Part of the delay may be that few admins may be willing to wad through all the bickering here in search of the few solid arguments. I said above that I would change my mind and vote keep (like DGG) if the inclusion in the two mentioned databases could be verified. However, this appears not to be possible, so I maintain my delete vote. It will be interesting to see the closing admin's evaluation of all this... --Crusio (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on database inclusion: Looking in America: History & Life  I find listing of 132 articles using North Louisiana History. EG it lists McCleary, William - Source:North Louisiana History; -Winter/Spring2011, Vol. 42 Issue 1/2, p3-20, 18p - Document Type:Article - Full Text Word Count:2761 - ISSN:0739005X - Accession Number:59867535- Database: America: History & Life


 * But there are 888 articles listed under one of the suggested other titles in our article: North Louisiana Historical Association Journal.


 * Looking in Historical Abstracts I could only find one article (But I didn't try with other titles):
 * RE-DEDICATION CEREMONY OF THE BRONZE TABLETS ON THE GRAVE OF DR. JOHN SIBLEY (1757-1837).Detail Only Available By: Wernet, Mary Linn. North Louisiana History, Spring/Summer2009, Vol. 40 Issue 2/3, p127-127, 1p; Historical Period: 2009; 1757 to 1837 Subjects: NATCHITOCHES (La.); LOUISIANA; RITES & ceremonies; SIBLEY, John; SEPULCHRAL monuments; SIBLEY, Jackson Database: Historical Abstracts
 * (Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Strange. I searched for Billy's article by author name/title and it didn't come up.
 * I researched a little more about these databases and I don't know how being one of 2,000 publications in America: History & Life or one in 2,000 publications Historical Abstracts makes each publication, including this, notable. I find it troublesome that an index in a database, means we ignore WP:BOOK and WP:ORG.


 * Reply. My article is 2010; the index goes only to 2005. That's why you didn't find it.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There simply aren't sources to have an article about this and the keepers can only point to one secondary source from a local paper in this organization's six decades. Anyone find a secondary source about how many times a year this is published? Can the contradictions be fixed? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: In the past 30 days, 3,466 have viewed the article. Its references are twice as long as the article itself. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because people think its about North Louisiana history (history of the region) or because all the interest of this AFD? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, there is more than one good independent references, but you have your selective glasses on. There is "Louisiana, the Pelican State" which has a brief history of the journal and the "Baton Rouge Morning Advocate" which also talks about the journal. You just choose to ignore them and use the bibliography listings as strawmen. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I counted 5 for the article and 5 against; only ten stated a position with so many additional comments as well. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * More than 3,800 have viewed the article in the last thirty day but very few have commented. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. You've been around long enough to know that AfD is not a vote and that number of page views is not an argument at AfD either (and how many of those views have been related to this AfD and the flurry of editing it has caused, do you think? This AfD has over 500 page views since last week, so I guess you'd think that this is notable, too... --Crusio (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the harsh statements? I was just trying to summarize the "votes." as they are stashed within so much irregular text. Yes, I know that the vote can be 10 for and 1 against, and the "against" wins. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per DGG. There's a laundry list of items that need to be cleaned up, including sourcing - which, despite claims to the contrary, is not adequate. We do have several references that don't pass muster, and those have been discussed at length above. But there's also evidence to suggest that this journal is (barely) notable, and DGG hit the nail on the head with his comment on indexing. This article can be salvaged. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also - stop vote counting. This will close when it closes, and anyone who expects admins to snap to it hasn't read the wall of text above. It's not (yet!) a trainwreck, so chill out and let some other poor bastard the closing admin do their job. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (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.