Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norchase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Norchase

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

I can find no evidence for the use of "Norchase" as the name of a distinct region of the Platte Purchase. Every Google hit for Norchase +Missouri either is a clone of this article or contains a clone of Template:Missouri, to which "Norchase" was added by the author of this article. In the absence of any reliable sources confirming the use of this term, the article fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the addition of this article was made in haste, due to the fact that the scholarly paper published for Northwest Missouri State University in which the term "Norchase" was coined is rather new and has not been adopted on a large scale by either inhabitants of the region or other scholars. [For some reason, the reference to said paper (The Norchase: A History of Andrew, Atchison, Holt, and Nodaway Counties by Jem Kenneth Syliss--edited by Niles Jennings) was deleted from the page.] The term itself is less of a colloquialism than a scholarly title for the region, but this does not mean that term does not exist. I am willing to make the necessary changes to this article to allow it to pass the current wikipedia standards. The purpose of this website is to share information, and information on the term "Norchase" can currently only be found in a single text in a small university library in northwestern Missouri and on this wikipedia website. I ask only that others help improve the page and give this relatively new information time to become more widely recognized and discovered. 12:06, 12 June 2008 (CST) (And my appologies to Grey Wanderer for prematurely deleting his tag. I'm new to the whole editing process.) User: Titus Justus
We really need verifiable references (see WP:V for the policy on that). Also, please note that if there's just one paper, the term may not be notable enough, yet, for wikipedia. (Please see WP:N for the notability policy.) An entry on wikipedia should come after the term is used and written about in the world. Unfortunately, wikipedia isn't meant to "get the word out there" so to speak. A common feeling on wikipedia is that there isn't a deadline, so we can afford to wait until a term is notable because it's in scholarly or common usage to include it. Sometimes that may mean deleting an article now, and recreating it when more references are published about it. After all, wikipedia does not publish original research, and sometimes getting the word out there for a new scholarly term treads too close to original research, becuase there are only primary sources that use the word. I hope that helps you see what we're looking for, and what the article needs. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep, pending a closer look into Titus Justus's references. I do note, however, that the existance of only one scholarly article may make this a neologism that fails WP:N still, and depending on the publication status of the reference, may still fail WP:V. As such, my keep opinion is both provisional and weak. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)