Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testing Recall About Strange Happenings


 * 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   delete. Per the general consensus at this discussion, the topic is not adequately notable to warrant its own page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Testing Recall About Strange Happenings

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted over a week ago, then overturned at WP:DRV with a consensus to list at AFD for further determination of notability. I think that the notability is thin at best, myself; I removed links to blogs and forums. If kept, it desperately needs better sources (Ken Jennings' book is a good start). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Needs reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. The fact that this is only briefly and passingly mentioned in a book about its subject underscores that it isn't even notable within its field, let alone outside it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. With respect to Andrew, it isn't "passingly mentioned" in a book.  Jennings devotes a chapter--chapter 3--to the subject of quiz bowl and compares and contrasts at length the four major tournament organizations--CBCI, NAQT, ACF, and TRASH.  It would be incongruous for the other organizations to have articles but to have no mention of TRASH on Wikipedia.  TRASH draws thousands of participants from the U.S. and Canada each year, for more than a decade.  Moreover, "TRASH" as a format (i.e., pop culture-centric quiz bowl competitions organized outside of the official TRASH organization) have been growing in popularity and are held all over the country, as are hybrid formats which combine TRASH and academic quiz bowl.  The article needs more sources, but notability should not be an issue. Robert K S (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Barring reliable sources, Delete. Robert, "These other related articles also exist, why shouldn't " is a very bad keep rationale. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would usually agree with you, but this isn't an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. A pre-eminent authority on trivia subculture gives recognition to four major organizations (actually I think one of them is now defunct--not this one, though).  Why would Wikipedia give unequal weight by covering of three of those organizations, but not one that is thriving as much as TRASH is? Robert K S (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Trash is mentioned in Quiz bowl, the relevant question should be whether it merits a separate article.  I did a fair amount of work on the quiz bowl article a few months ago, and I don't recall finding articles dedicated specifically to this format, though they may exist.  Jennings does reference it in the portions of the book you can see free online.--Milowent (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the references to TRASH were purged from the Quiz Bowl article by the nominator. It's amazing there's anything left. Robert K S (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.162.221 (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it okay that members of TRASH are fishing online  for votes? 70.30.119.65 (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Internet Crimez!! Seriously though, you mentioning it lets the closing admin be aware of it, so it can be taken into account as necessary.--Milowent (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't okay. See WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  06:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a vote, not canvassing, and I'm not a "member of TRASH". The forum was one of the "external links" I noted in the article and I thought it stood to reason that if anyone was in a position to improve the article or otherwise give evidence of the subject's notability, it would be those who had involvement.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 07:04, 18 November 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.