Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transylvanian Society of Dracula


 * 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Transylvanian Society of Dracula

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

References do not support notability requirements. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability asserted in the article or found by me.Weak Keep ONLY if the article is thoughouly rewritten to an acceptable standard, which it now has been (although further statistics about its membership and how active the organization is will not hurt the article). Themfromspace (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Article easily fits within the Wikipedia category "fandom" []. A LexisNexis Academic search, utilizing the name of the organization, returns 54 articles centred on the group in major newspapers in North America and western Europe since the mid 1990's. I encountered one claim that stated that it is the largest academically based organization in the world dedicated to the study of "vampire lore". Current references in the article are not demonstrative of the range of citations available in support of the group's notability. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - sourcing found : -- Logical Premise Ergo? 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Stake it through the heart. Do you have that LexisNexis search string handy? Because oddly, I'm finding a tiny handful of papers, most of which give them a single cite from their literature, and almost every "news" reference I've seen is a one-line mention of some local "chapter president". ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I can't find any direct coverage, beyond the very trivial. I'm not finding any in the article, which is mass of uncited information and possible OR. Lines like "There is the vast chapter of the unanswerable, of mysteries yet unfolded, of disturbing hypothesis – as debated at the TSD’s annual symposiums, seminars: all yours to consider" make me wonder where exactly the encyclopedic value in this article can be found. Finally, the editor who created it is very new and may not be familar with all of WP policies yet, they seem to be rather focused on vampirism. On the other hand, please note that it's only a few days old. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I utilized LexisNexis Academic, entered "Transylvanian Society of Dracula" and chose "Major U.S. and World Publications" as a source category, producing 56 returns from 1993 to present. Although a majority of the articles tend to focus on the group's "touring" activities in Romania, a number of them provide a more detailed overview of the groups mainstream academic involvement in research regarding the history and folklore surrounding the vampire motif, with specific focuses on the historical figure of Vlad III the Impaler, the literature surrounding Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goth subculture in general. Although my "inclusionist" biases may be showing here, I'd like to suggest that we are jumping the gun in terms of prematurely excluding this article based on its current form, it obviously requires some "cleaning up", but as I mentioned above, in my opinion, it is currently under represented in its own reference section in terms of what's out there in the literature. I think we should give the editor concerned an opportunity to do some more work on improvement before we too hastily dismiss their topic as too "esoteric" or "unsupported" in the literature. There most definitely *are* references out there that support its "notability", we should provide people who are involved with this piece the chance to provide them and do a general clean up, without feeling they're 'under the gun' right from the start. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep. No reliable sources to assert notability of this organization. The article is written entirely mostly from primary sources, with a grain of WP:OR. VG &#x260E; 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many marginal references, see the template, e.g. this one from a 1993 NYT. All these together probably justify an article about the society itself. I'm still worried about the verifiability of most of the claims in the current article. VG &#x260E; 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I've added some other references, like the article in National Geographic Magazine, March 2006 featuring links to Elizabet Miller and The Company Of Mysterious Journeys, the Official Travel Agency of the TSD and another one on Answers.com . Like somebody said before, yes I am new to Wikipedia and I need some time to learn how to fully write articles here. The TSD page is not completed as in the days to come we will add some more information and clean it up. We just need a little time. --Deepbluero (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The NYT article along with the rest is just  sufficient for notability. The text needs a complete rewrite, as several people have said. Besides finding sources, I recommend at look at  our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete Keep(added: Seems like enough books have a paragraph or so about it. The article still needs cleanup to make it less spammy. The NY Times article is one source. The Nat Geographic only appears to include a directory listing. Most of the references are to the organization's own sites or publications and cannot support notability as they are not independent. Answers.com is not considered a reliable source for purposes of notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google books seems to have 30+ hits 20 of which are citeable online, Google Scholar has 16. -- Banj e  b oi   00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A ten second search across the various Google domains verified that there is more than enough significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources to verify an article. the skomorokh  18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough references to establish notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to meet WP:ORG as far as I can see. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (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.