Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (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 NO CONSENSUS.  Spinning Spark  23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

North Louisiana History
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 wouldn't 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 non-trival multiple press mentions, 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. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) 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;  08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 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) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete both. I have to admit that my first reaction upon looking at those two articles was that this was a ridiculous AfD. Both articles appear to be meticulously sourced. However, upon closer examination, the nom proves to be completely correct: all references are trivial: very local sources, library catalogs, non-independent sources, etc. All this beefed up by including trivial quotes in all refs so that they look more solid. The society misses all criteria of WP:ORG, the journal does not meet WP:NJournals. Neither meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep one; merge the other -- see reasons in FD for other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, I'm a bit slow today (migraine...). Could you please specify which one to keep and which one to merge? And I probably slap my (already hurting) head once you guive the answer, but what is "FD"? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I only just now saw that there are two separate AFDs (and I realize "FD" was a typo... :-) Although 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) 10:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Neither article meets WP:GNG, and they don't appear to meet WP:ORG and WP:NJournals, respectively. The references appear to be for trivial mentions, catalogues, etc. . --Boson (talk) 12:42, 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) 03:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to North Louisiana Historical Association per my comment at that AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said at the previous AfD, 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.) 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 journal. 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 because I thought he should do what was suited to his material, publish it in proper academic journals--including this. It could be merged with the society, if we keep that article, but the journal can be more easily seen to be notable because of the indexing.  DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You copy and pasted the same response in other AFD. First, are you arguing to keep both the articles for the same reason? Because your statement makes less sense in the other AFD where you voted twice with a weak keep and keep, using the same word-for-word reasoning. Secondly, none of your statements apply to WP:GNG, which says: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The coverage isn't "significant". Even if abstracting were significant, the information about the abstracting is sourced to the "journal" itself and thus, is not independent. What this means is there is no significant coverage from secondary sources about the organization or journal. As for your claim that it is a "proper academic journal," please support this statement with a reference. This fails WP:NJOURNALS. SalHamton (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NJournals is only an essay. James500 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part where I wrote, in part: "none of your statements apply to WP:GNG, which says: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The coverage isn't "significant". Even if abstracting were significant, the information about the abstracting is sourced to the "journal" itself and thus, is not independent. SalHamton (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I absolutely oppose outright deletion. This would be a plausible redirect to History of Louisiana or North Louisiana even if there was no journal. One can, in ordinary language, speak of "North Lousiana history", that is to say, "the history of North Louisiana". James500 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the one trivial sentence about the journal in a 400 page book from 40 years ago and the one local (poorly written) article there is no independent sourcing and those two are trivial. If there is no interest beyond those two sources, there is no evidence that anyone would be searching for this or need a redirect of such a narrow, trivial topic to such a significant article on state history. SalHamton (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects are required to be plausible. They are not, strictly, required to have any sources at all. We even allow redirects from plausible typographical errors. Unless North Louisiana is a neologism, this is a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC) And, anyway, if you run "North Louisiana history" and "history of North Louisiana" through Google, they do get results. And the fact that there is a journal specifically devoted to the history of North Louisiana would seem to indicate that there are people interested in that subject. James500 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So no disagreement about the lack of independent non-trival sources, I didn't think so. Anyone who googles a phrase with "Louisiana history" will get the google result of the history Louisiana. That is not an argument for redirect anymore than including "south Louisiana history," "east Louisiana history," "south-west Louisiana history," "western Louisiana history," "west Louisiana history," "new Louisiana history," "old Louisiana history," "farmers in Louisiana history," "Indians in Louisiana history" "Texans of Louisiana history," or "self-promoters in Louisiana history." Would you want to make a redirect for each of these? SalHamton (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving to keep per User:Unscintillating (and I apologise for failing to notice the bibliography section). James500 (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Unscintillating is one of three who inflated the sources with trivial mentions during the first AFD. An editorial remark about keyword searches is not a "Bibliography." Unscintillating reverted my edit then another user (not me) removed it, Unscintillating added it again where it was removed again and so Unscintillating inserted it yet again and then another person agreed with its removal writing, "does not help readers at all". (Edit: See below for discussion about Unscintillating being admonished on the notice board for this.) SalHamton (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic satisfies Notability (media) under points 2a, 2b, 4, and 5, each of which creates a "presumption of notability" that as per WP:N the topic is "worthy of notice".
 * 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 Worldcat and the National Library of Australia. Note that there have been no arguments that this topic falls into WP:NOT, or that it fails WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV.  WP:N is the sole argument cited for deletion, which in the presence of WP:V reliable material is not a valid deletion argument without discussing the WP:ATD.  Another point to be noted is that the word "trivial" has a specific technical meaning at Wikipedia, in the sense of being listed in a phone book, and the very nature of such "trivial" material is that it is not useful for sourcing content&mdash;thus, to say that a reference that has been used to source encyclopedic content is "trivial", is an oxymoron.  One of the essential requirements of an encyclopedia article is to define the topic, and in the current case, the majority of the current article is defining the topic, with eighteen different names for this topic being identified.  The fact that the topic is partially identified with reliable independent primary sources is not a notability issue.  WP:N has one and only one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice".  There are many ways to decide this, which is why we have many notability guidelines and essays .  It is also possible to argue that even when notability guidelines are satisfied, the topic is still not worthy of notice.  Notability is merely a test to determine if we want to have a stand-alone article.  This is a separate question from the issue, "is there sufficient material to write an article".  In the case of newspapers and journals, we have a low bar for notability.  WP:NJOURNALS states, "To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."  The fact is that this is a reputable journal, used as a reliable source by Wikipedia editors, has a record of receiving citations in Google scholar, is abstracted in two databases, is a topic that we want to cover, and we have sufficient reliable sources including primary sources with which to write the article.  I've located one more source,, which shows that EBSCO Publishing carries all four variations of this journal in America: History and Life.
 * Currently the encyclopedia has 55 wikilinks to the article. The nature of the argument has not changed from the first AfD, which shows that adding reliable sources (difference from 1st to 2nd AfD, including 131 revisions), doesn't stop ad hominems and badgering.  The diff shows that from the start of the last AfD to the start of the current Afd, 27 sources were added, including 3 in the "Bibliography" section  Note that the "Bibliography" section lists two newspaper articles that add to wp:notability.  Also, please see   this secton in the North Louisiana Historical Association article before the nominator removed the citation.  As per discussion at WT:Citing sources, there is ambiguity in calling this entry a "reference".  Note that there is one explicit newspaper article and 104 additional newspaper articles, which as a group satisfy WP:NRVE.  It is interesting that no one is willing to spend $19.95 to find out what is in this archive.  Someday, either someone in Ruston will do research at the local library, or someone will pay to look behind the paywall.  There is WP:NO DEADLINE at Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First, Unscintillating is one of three people (including creator) who several years ago added all these library listings and inflated the sourcing. For example, he added the National Library of Australia library listing here and many more of the trivial mentions, like (citing worldcat for its temporary names). In the last two years, there has been no references added that show this has had "significant coverage" about it. Rather, instead of improving the article by adding sources people discuss the journal's work, we have endless citations that this journal sits in libraries (likely unread-- as scholars don't talk about it). It is interesting he neglected to mention that.
 * Second, Unscintillating made several of misstatements. It is a local journal as it covers local history, thus its interest is limited compared to journals that coverage Chinese history or world history. In the previous AFD, Unscintillating referred to those who pointed out of localness of the topic as: "bring[ing] the spectre of "racism" into an AfD." While the National Library of Australia has some copies of this in their catelog and it you look at that page you'll notice the most recent copy that have is no. 4 in fall 1998. Just because it sits in a library doesn't mean people read it or cite it. Thus, being listed in worldcat isn't a reason to keep, as worldcat merely shows holdings of any documents, whether they be self-published or significant works. Library listings are not coverage about the publication. Per GNG we need independent, secondary sources that show non-trivial coverage. Links to libraries and being one of 2,000 publications abstracted by a databases doesn't prove that.
 * Thirdly, Unscintillating is misrepresenting my nomination. The nomination says: "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 non-trivial multiple press mentions, no awards from the historical community and so on." If you can demonstrate that the public or academic community have shown interest in this with "significant coverage" in secondary sources, I'll withdraw the nomination. However a foreign library's decade old issue doesn't prove notability and google's indexing project doesn't demonstrate that anyone cites or reads this.
 * Yes, the article is linked to many times, by the now banned user (Hathorn) who wrote one article for this publication. For instance, said user cited the journal stating in George Washington Donaghey:

"In an article in the North Louisiana Historical Association Journal (since North Louisiana History), Johnson explained that she asked the Olinkraft Timber Company of West Monroe, Louisiana, to cease cutting trees on the property and to help with the restoration of the monument."
 * The article is about a US Governor and Hathorn cited the journal because at one point a state legislaturer wanted the company cutting the trees next to the governor's monument to "help with the restoration." This is type of citation being linked here! In the last few weeks I've nominated several articles where Hathorn self-cited his North Louisiana Journal article-- all were deleted. That google indexes parts of the Journal through one its library scanning programs does not make it notable neither does abstracting.
 * Simply being abstracted or its articles being crawled by google does not meet the GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." After call, self-published books that no one cares about get crawled in google books as well.
 * Lastly, I did remove an editorial remark (Unscintillating calls it a "Bibliography" section) about how many times a keyword search came up. That has an interesting history. Unscintillating reverted it then another user (not me) removed it, Unscintillating added it again where it was removed again and so Unscintillating inserted it yet again and then another person agreed with its removal writing, "does not help readers at all". So despite Unscintillating wiki-laywering trying to get something kept, consensus and facts were against Unscintillating's addition. He neglected to mention that above to paint my efforts negatively and failed to mention he was the only person wanting to keep it. A keyword search in a wiki article adds nothing (it certainly is not a "bibliography") and his repeated attempts to insert it against consensus and still argue in favor of it in this AFD points to just how unnotable this whole topic really is: If there are sources that show significant secondary coverage on this, he'd no doubt add them, but they don't exist. So he fluffs it up telling readers about a keyword search. SalHamton (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh God, not that "bibliography" thing again. There was a whole thread on this noticeboard about that and editor after editor kept telling Unscintillating that this was not a reference and that it had no place in an article. And despite the bold claim above that this meets several criteria of Notability (media), there is no explanation on how these criteria are met. As far as I can see, this thing has no historic purpose or significant history, it is not regularly cited and it is not an important publication in a niche market (unless you define "history of North Louisiana" as a niche market, of course), and there are no sources that cut any wood. (In fact, I have never seen an article that contained as much hot air as this one does, with all those out-of-context overblown "quotes" in each reference). The only valid argument in favor of notability that has been presented up till now is DGG's point about being included in "America: History and Life". I have no idea how selective that database is. If it includes everything that falls within its scope, then that would not mean much. If it only includes journals after an in-depth review, then that would be a good sign of notability. I'm leaving this discussion now, because I have a feeling that someone is going to dump here a whole wall of text full of wikirules and guidelines that will show for the whole world to see that I am completely wrong about all of this :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the noticeboard discussion and I see why Unscintillating didn't mention it: Every single editor supported my edit and criticized Unscintillating's reverting. As one administrator said, Unscintillating ignored the actual discussion "and replied with wall-of-text wikilawyering." Also interesting discussion about his actions in other AFDs, including non-admin closing AFDs to keep contentious articles.
 * DGG's point above is not a good reason for keeping this. It is merely one of 2,000+ publications, including "some state and local history journals" in America: History & Life and one in 2,000+ publications Historical Abstracts. Why should the closing adminstrator reject the policies of GNG, WP:BOOK or WP:ORG criteria because it and 1,999+ other publications are abstracted? Bottom line: There is no significant, if any, scholarly discussion about this journal. SalHamton (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with the journal if desired. As Unscintillating explained, we have (and ought to have) a fairly low bar for academic journals, and this one clears it by a significant margin. Indexed, cited far more than a trivial number of times, referenced by a Harvard publication on African-American historical sources - this journal is clearly an important historical record for its local area of interest. That its local area of interest is not a massively-popular world-renowned center of gravity, but rather a fairly obscure "backwater" of American geography is of no consequence. If anything, that fact militates toward its inclusion - this journal is likely one of the few reliable sources for significant historical information about the region. polarscribe (talk) 20:27, 16 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.