Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Nine Society


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. – Avi 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) After further review, I think this article meets my standards for notability, and as the proposer, I am withdrawing the nomination for deletion -- Avi 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Triple Nine Society
I am not sure on which side of notability this falls. It is more notable than Mega, Giga, Prometheus, but not as notable as Mensa. Avi 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a notable organization. While it is true that Top-X percentage societies can get tiresome, the ratio of google hits to an (obviously) small organization is pretty good. Irongargoyle 21:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this group could pass the WP:ORG guidelines. The article tells us that this is a club with 650 members. There are no gnews hits, one plausible scholar hit (a letter to the editor in American Statistician, but I don't have JSTOR access so I can't say exactly what it is). There's nothing resembling a newspaper or magazine of any sort in the first 3 pages of ghits. Given the nature of the membership I'm not convinced that 310 unique/654 total non-encyclopedia ghits is a great many. The article itself is a (non-copyvio) paraphrase of the society's home page, and in that limited sense is verifiable - it's what they say about themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article might be expanded, but why the heck delete it? Besides, WP:ORG is merely a proposal. Polymath69 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment so if you don't care for WP:ORG, and yes, its a guideline, let's go with policy: verifiability and neutral point of view. Verifiable ? Not beyond the bare fact of its existence. Neutral point of view ? Not achieved by quoting PR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Utterly irrelevant. Notability is actually NOT a criteria for deletion, as per Wiki deletion policy. Bringing it up as reason for deletion demonstrates only bad will on the part of whoever suggests such a deletion. Everyone can easily see: Wikipedia deletion policy that notability plays no part whatsover in determining the status of the article. No talk beyond that is necessary.StevanMD 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As WP:CSD explains, articles are not merely deleted, but are speedily deleted, for failure to claim or imply notability (CSD A7). The whole purpose of guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:ORG is to determine whether the subject persons or groups are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, for which notability is merely a shorthand. As WP:NN says, it is a "test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, so. If notability is "only a shorthand", what does it stand for? Is it for suitability as you say? If so, who and on what grounds establishes suitability? You say neutral point of view and verifiable information are imperative. Yes? Who verifies the informations for each and every article and who and in what way provides the certainty of the neutral point? If you truly adhere to concerns about notability I expect you to swiftly put on the road to deletion Northside Grizzlies, Hamblen Elementary School (Spokane, Washington), Cosby Elementary School and a myriad of similar articles, which by the standards you apply on Triple Nine Society are neither notable, nor verifiable. Will you? Will you ever? Failure to properly answer and undertake such action will render you a biased, bad willed censor, rather than objective, concerned encyclopaedists. You and your actions will tell us which of the two it is. There is no such thing as selective objectivity.StevanMD 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why there are many administrators, and a number of processes. Wikipedia is nowhere near perfect, but as a whole, it does a pretty good job of policing itself. Further, it is not a vote, but a discussion with which an administrator can make a reasonable decision. If you feel it is a ghastly oversight, there is always WP:DRV -- Avi 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP! Why in the world would anyone want to delete this article? TNS has been around almost 30 years! The only reason some people are motivated to want to delete this article is animus against High-IQ societies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.99.224 (talk • contribs).


 * KEEP Everything in the article is, i.e., all of the factual data presented, of course, possible to verify. There are no falsehoods or untruths in the article. There is no bias in the article as all facts which are proffered are true and verifiable. There has been media coverage of the Triple Nine Society. (See, for example, The Denver Post, June 21, 2005, ) There are NO good reasons to delete this article about an organization of intellectually gifted people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizenberg  (talk • contribs).
 * Comment since you've found an independent report, it would be a good idea to add the link to the Denver Post to the External links section of the article (adding the other link as well, to the TNS website where it's available, would be sensible as readers may not wish to pay the Denver Post to read the article if they have the choice). The actual purpose of the group covered, whatever it may be, is not relevant to the AFD process (or it shouldn't be anyway). A second report would be ideal, and then the AFD could be withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all-out onslaught agenda painfully obvious & no harm in keeping anyway - it's not like the article attacks folks, for Chrissake! someone (this means you, admin over this) needs to stand up to these shameless concurrent attacks SOUTH 15:10, 24 July 2006 (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.