Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhetoric Society of America


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhetoric Society of America

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This does not assert its notification. It does not have a wide exposure, most Google hits containing only what it is and not how it is notable. Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This doesn't have multiple news sources covering it but common sense tells me that it's notable. Here you can see how there's been multiple articles written about people and this society is found to be important enough that these people are mentioned as members when they're introduced.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The major US academic organization in the field. DGG (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? 2.1 linear feet for 27 years of archives? Gotta wonder. Bongo  matic  13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be so credulous, DGG. Just because they call themselves "major" doesn't make them so. Anyway, "major" is a meaningless, wp:peacock adjective. Notability is not importance. Does any actual independent coverage of this organization exist? 160.39.212.83 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Shawn from in Montreal removed my CSD tags multiple times. He has been working on this. -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 03:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC) On top of that, the examples mention people in the organization, but no articles directly relate to the organization.
 * Reply anyone who is not the article creator is free to remove speedy or PROD tags. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. They seem to be noteworthy among certain academic circles, as a quick online search will reveal. Majoreditor (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The news string shown by ol yellar doesn't show any instances where the organization was discussed as the primary subject of the news article, which is required by WP:N and WP:ORG. They are all trivial name-drops.  Likewise, a google scholar search shows only self-published material or trivial references.  No independant sources discussing the subject in non-trivial detail.  Themfromspace (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some sources which are a bit more than trivial:, , , , . The Society may not appear as the subject of a cover story in The Economist or The New York Times, but it clearly is an established scholarly organization which merits mentions from prominent universities, their magazines, websites, academics, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first isn't independant, the second is trivial, the third isn't independant, the fourth is trivial, and the fifth is trivial. Furthermore, none of these actually involve discussion about the society. Themfromspace (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the book cite I've added in the "Impact of the RSA" lead nsection goes a ways in helping to clearly establish verifiable third-party notability for this academic organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. Sources do not focus on the subject of the article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per established notability and the good faith efforts toward continued improvment of the article. And no doubt they'd love all the rhetoric within the electronic pages of wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comment, Michael, and I've just added a cite regarding the Society's 2008 acceptance into the American Council of Learned Societies. While I have nothing to do with the Rhetoric Society of America, I'm struck by how many cites there are for it and its Rhetoric Society Quarterly in Google Books and Google Scholar.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Hate to say it, but I really wish my colleagues here that get so fired up over deleting articles would relax a little. A quick Google search pulled up plenty of examples of this being notable. :) Ks64q2 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any you'd care to show? I haven't seen a single link from a source that is both reliable and independant to show that this society meets our notability guidelines. Claiming notability without proving it does nothing. Themfromspace (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The chapter in Authoring a Discipline more than meets that requirement: it is not a self-published source. Plus, we have a national organization, whose acceptance into American Council of Learned Societies indicates a high level of achievement: which are both additional criteria of WP:ORG for non-commercial organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also just added a ref from the National Society for the Study of Education that refers to the RSA's innovative work in the field of teaching composition and rhetoric.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons Shawn in Montreal mentioned. That notable organization wouldn't recognize and potentially fund it, if it wasn't notable.    D r e a m Focus  11:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shawn In Montreal and Ks64q2 and Majoreditor-- Tony G 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's astounding to question having an article on an academic society devoted to studying a most fundamental use of language. -74.242.254.23 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.