Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvish Linguistic Fellowship

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 Neutral Close per Snow/Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure .Fosnez (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elvish Linguistic Fellowship

Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? This is an encyclopedia, not a ton of Lord of the Rings crap. Give me a break! Basegirlball (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Could you please be more specific as to why this article should be deleted? --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete After reading the article, I don't think the organization is notable. No references are cited. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are 5250 Google hits for this organization. Its website has been in place since 2003. A specialized area of scholarship, but legit, no reason to delete. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability established through sources. Mentioned in The Guardian here, with more significant coverage here. A Google search here shows articles from the Boston Globe, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Duluth News Tribune. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Quite aside from this being one of Basegirlball's flurry of newbie AfDs, I would hope and trust we'd make slightly more of an effort to gauge the notability of a subject than to glance at the article and decide we don't like the cut of its jib. It's not a well-written article, but even the most cursory Google search turns up a number of reliable sources, and the organization has sixteen cites on Google Scholar.  RGTraynor  03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't just a group of fans, it's a scholarly collegium that has provided invaluable editorial assistance in the later publication of Tolkien's works (and which predates the web, so who cares when they put up a .org?). Needs cleanup & secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Your reasoning seems to be a bit crazy, if I may say so. But the organization does have sufficient notability from what others have posted. crassic![talk] 05:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Pretty obviously notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 14 March 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.