Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Academy

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. - Bobet 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Academy

Contested prod about a non-notable charity. MER-C 09:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, if it were to be expanded then it could be of some merit 27pence 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sorry Magicbymccauley, the sources are not reliable have changed from weak keep to delete.27pence 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, so now it's not "spammy" it's a "Non-notable Charity" .First of all, it is not listed in the article as a "charity" and it is not a "charity" it's a "not-for-profit" which is substantially different. Secondly it is a unique organization, the only kind of its type in the field of magic, and if you can find another one, show it to me. Third, it has a membership of over 500. Isn't that enough to make it "significant"? Okay, I expanded it. Is that enough for it to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, what would be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs) .
• As has been discussed by Gwernol, the article needs to have third party sources, and would be notable if a significant media outlet has covered the academy, or been covered in published work. Provide these then it will be a firm Keep, from me, however at the moment it is a Week Keep. I do think we should give Magicbymccauley time to provide this information. 27pence 10:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

References Added. Baltimore Sun and City Paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)

• Delete Non-notable organization. Notability would be established if the academy had been covered in a significant media outlet or published work. Currently the article has no third party sources so is unverifiable. Gwernol 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely verifiable by U.S. government websites as to its existence in multiple institutions. References added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)

• Delete per Gwernol. Not many Ghits for "Mystery Academy", and most of them aren't even about this organization.wikipediatrix 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hits on site aren't relevant to actual interest in subject. Since Mystery Academy is listed under multiple government and school sites, you'd have to add up all the hits under all those sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)

• Delete nn organisation as per Gwernol Marcus22 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Party publication and notability in Baltimore Sun and City Paper established. Third Party Viability and size of organization established through multiple .gov sites as well as independent private schools.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbymccauley (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Original research,unverified and vanity. The references also don't establish notability, since they either make trival mentions or don't mention Mystery Academy at all. To meet the notability guidelines you need to cite multiple non-trivial published works where the article topic is the subject of the work and not merely mentioned in passing. Self-published sources are not normally acceptable. Please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end, and please do not separate the signatures of others from their comments. Yomangani^talk 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's no original research on this article whatsoever. If you think there is, please tell me where it is and I'll delete it. Does this mean that you can't have a wikipedia article UNLESS there are published articles about an organization? There is NOTHING unverified in the article. What is unverified? Is it better if the entry is much shorter? The only "self published" sources are the mystery academy website and Eric Henning's website! I'll try to make the article more consice and smaller. Didn't mean to seperate signatures or anything. Am new to wikipedia.

Your criteria is subjective and difficult to fulfil. What kind of articles do you need and how many? Local papers? City Papers? National Distribution? What is it specifically that you want to establish notability? "I don't think it's notable" doesn't provide me with any useful information on how to bring it into compliance.

"Lastly, I challenge you to produce another organization of any kind that teaches magic to children on this scale. -Magicbymccauley

The criteria are not subjective. We have given you links to the specific policies and guidelines. Here they are again: verifiability notability; original research; reliable sources. Please read these as they all give speicifc, objective criteria. I've looked through the references you added to the article. First, thanks for doing so. The problem is they don't help with notability. The Baltimore Sun and City Paper articles only establish the notability of the "Kids in College" program, not the "Mystery Academy", because that's all they mention. The City Paper "article" is only a local listing, not an editorial article. The Baltimore Sun article would be a good reliable source if it actually mentioned your academy, sadly it doesn't. One brief mention of the program your academy is part of doesn't count.

The rest of the references you've gave either simply establish that the Mystery Academy exists (which isn't in dispute) or are pages from people directly involved in the program, such as Eric Henning's page. You need to find an article like the Baltimore Sun one but about the Mystery Academy itself, which describes why it is important.

Finally to deal with the original research aspect. Here are some really probelmatic quotes from the article: "Mystery Academy is a unique project in human history..."; "Mystery Academy involves a rigorus (and sometimes contraversial method) involves teaching tricks which are the highest possible caliber"; "Mystery Academy is also unique in that it is the only Magic organization in the world to award rank (achievement levels based on skill)". None of these have sources, they are all unverifiable. They are all the opinion of the writer of the article, not independent, sourced assessments of others. These are clear original research by the writer. Gwernol 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol: Edited the article to take out the statements you objected to, plus similar statements. The pages I gave establish enrollment and curriculum, not Merely Mystery Academy's existence. (Which was actually in dispute when this article began). Sorry that you think this process is objective, because it isn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, there'd simply be a bot that established whether the article was acceptable or not. Even the requirements that you have cited are highly subjective, from a philosophical standpoint. They do not give "specific" or "objective" criteria but mainly interpretable guidelines. I ask again, for the third time: is the only way to establish notability a published article about an organization? If so, what kind of a publication is required, what does it's syndication numbers have to be, and how many articles are required? If your notability requirements are "objective" then this should be an easy question to answer. As of yet, no one has answered it. -Magicbymccauley

• Comment You cite the Baltimore Sun as one of your sources. I can find no mention of Mystery Academy in that source. Have you given the correct source? Please check and repost the correct source. If you are mentioned in that source I would find it of interest. Marcus22 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcus: You should check ALL of my sources in order to understand what's going on. Mystery Academy is part of "Kids in College" which was prominently mentioned in the article. -Magicbymccauley

• • Sorry, but if that is the case your source is no good. It is an article about a college and it simply does not mention the Mystery Academy. As to 'ALL' your other sources - why are you assuming I have not checked them? FYI I have and I find that there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the Academy is of note. (And your own web page is hardly a reliable source to suggest such is it?) I can only say that if or when the Academy is truly noteworthy - a thing verified by independent and reliable sources (which actually mention the academy) - then the article will stand on it's own merits. Until then, it is still Delete. Sorry. Marcus22 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, continues to be NN in spite of the great volume of rather pointless text above. Of course, WP:OR and WP:RS problems exist, too. My Alt Account 09:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research in the article anymore. Nothing in the article is there that can't be found in one of the sources. If so, then tell me what is original reasearch. And how is it not from reliable sources. Do you mean to say that accounts from publications put out by the U.S. government are unreliable? Because if that's what you mean, then I disagree with you. As far as notability goes, people still refuse to tell me what constitutes it, if it is so "objective". Seems like wiki people are more used to raising objections rather than defending their own arguments. -magicbymccauley

Marcus: The article about the college mentions (through half of it), the "Kids in College" program. Mystery Academy was part of the "Kids in College" program, as was backed up by the other sources that I cited. You say: "I have and I find that there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the Academy is of note." This clearly violates the NPOV. There couldn't be a more opinionated statement you could have written. You then say: "I can only say that if or when the Academy is truly noteworthy - a thing verified by independent and reliable sources (which actually mention the academy) - then the article will stand on it's own merits." Mystery Academy doesn't need to be written up in a Nationwide newspaper for it to be noteworthy. Check the series of articles on porn stars on wikipedia. None of them are mentioned as "noteworthy" by any independent newspaper or publication. Yet they aren't on the slate for deletion. If a porn star that's starred in two movies that no one's ever seen is noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia, then Mystery Academy is. If you want to vote to delete it, go ahead. I certainly can't stop you. I've eliminated all POV, and OR issues from the article, but that's just not good enough, so you resort to the most subjective criteria in wikidom, the NN opinion. Whatever. If you don't want the article then fine. It'll all be gone and no one will be the wiser. Luckily though, we'll all be able to see the credentials of every porn actress that's ever been in a movie, which really makes me feel better about the whole thing. -magicbymccauley

• Comment Please feel free to nominate, as an AfD, any article on Wikipedia which you feel does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with the academy. Marcus22 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that those articles don't get nominated, marcus, but mine does. Why is that? Could it be that notability is a completely subjective concept? If those articles have 0 references and there are no publications which mention them, doesn't that mean that standards are being selectively applied? Once again, if those articles are "notable" then Mystery Academy meets that standard of notability. If they aren't up to that standard why have they been up for years but no one nominates them for deletion? You can't claim that my article needs to meet the standard of publication while other articles don't. That's my point. -magicbymccauley

Wikipedia has (at this second) 1,382,051 articles. Thousands of them require deletion by Wikipedia standards and may go months, even years, before someone notices. I know it seems unfair that this one got caught when others haven't, but life isn't fair. Pointing to other flawed articles in defense of another flawed article is no defense. (I still do it myself sometimes even though I know better.) wikipediatrix 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But are these articles truly "bad" articles, or are they accepted by wikipedia? Are you claiming that all articles that exist without published sources are "bad" articles? That's quite a claim! Are you saying then that ALL wikipedia articles require a citation with a published source with a national distribution to establish "notability"? So NOTHING can be on wikipedia that hasn't been in a published source? I find that hard to believe. Searching through the notability pages, it seems there is quite a lot of disagreement about what notability is. There are certainly people who will argue that every single porn star is notable, while others disagree. I submit that if these articles ARE notable, then so is Mystery Academy. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an official policy on notability at all. Assuming then that the article is free from Vanity, has a NPOV, is verifiable, and contains no original research, then we are finally left with the issue of notability, which is a completely subjective issue. I asked repeatedly (four times now), and have yet to be answered: what kind of article in what kind of publication establishes notability. I expect that no one has answered this question because they don't have an answer. If the only issue we have yet to face with this article is its notability, then it seems I am answering to subjective claims, rather than objective ones. -magicbymccauley

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.