Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Densa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Majorly (hot!) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Densa

Densa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable, see WP:ORG CA387 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no independant sources. given that meetings are now few, and it was seen as a vehicle for scientists' irony, rather than standing up for the stupid, and we can't get good references within a year, it needs to go. Callix 12:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Densa now has three New York Times references and a book in the article as references. Densa gets 1.6 million Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia. A humorous alternative to Mensa, which has been around for decades. Edison 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Edison's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep' thanks for the referencing, Edison. --W.marsh 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where are you getting the 1.6 million hits figure from? The organization seems defunct now (archived site), which makes me question whether it's worth having an article on. Despite two references in the Times, the last one was back in 1999. --CA387 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What does it matter when the reference was? Wikipedia is not just for things in the news lately. --W.marsh 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison. Just because may not be active now does not mean it should be deleted. References now establish notability. Davewild 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If some organization had multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, then absolutely ceased to exist one day after the last reference was published, it would still be notable, because notability is permanent. Edison 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Edison.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Condense to a brief section in the Mensa article, and redirect. "Densa" is not notable as a real organisation, but it is notable as a common pun with 40,000 Google results (there are 1.6 million results if you don't include "Mensa" in the search, because you end up catching countless pages with densa, which is "dense" in Spanish, Italian, Latin and other languages). — Chameleon 08:12, 12 April 2007 (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.