Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League

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. You may wish to give the article some time to improve; if you do re-list, I suggest a more robust nomination, which may start a fuller discussion and attract attention. As is, this discussion has been open well over the usual period and is obviously leaning keep -- the matter doesn't seem quite settled, but it seems about as far in any direction as it's going to get for now. Luna Santin 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Another splinter group. Colorful, but fails WP:ORG and WP:V Wehwalt 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ORG lists 'Inclusion in third party published materials' as sufficient grounds for an assertion of notability for a group. Besides, WP:ORG is not a core content policy. WP:V is a core content policy, but this article doesn't fail WP:V because its sources are third-party and reliable. See discussion [[1]]. Aelffin 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I found a leftish schorlarly source documenting group-ideas-activities. I am looking for a source that is mainstream verifiable and reliable that would cover the groups bowling ball through the recruiting office hi-jinks I will go for "keep"Edivorce 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• found a article in significant Minneapolis "alternative" press The Pulse with a printed circulation of 20,000 documenting the bowling ball incident. Still looking.Edivorce 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI tried to search Star Tribune for this incident but they only permit searches of past 14 days for newsarticles on webpage. I'm sure that MST has this documented, it was in March 1988 so it might just be paper. Its a colorful humorous story that amount to a fine bit of local folklore. It would be covered by WP:LOCAL plus groups importance in anarchist development in USA. I think we should be able to get paper cite from MST-I will try to contact articles only editor, an IP. I hope he's from Minneapolis, maybe he can search. Feel free to complain about WP:CANVASS. I think it only fair to contact.Edivorce 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Correction More than one editor has contributed to this article. Only one has comment on discussion page. I will contact all. Edivorce 04:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that the article needs better citation, but RABL doesn't fail WP:ORG because of its influence on later organizations, such as Love and Rage. Aelffin 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Though the existing sources pass the some of the criteria for non-scholarly sources on WP:Reliable sources, I agree that they could be better. However, being unverified in itself isn't grounds for deletion. A better solution would be to put a cleanup-verify tag on the page. Aelffin 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'd say notability is achieved, though it could use some wikification. Murderbike 10:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVING AfD

• The consensus appears to be Keep: 2 votes, Delete: 0 votes. This article has been debated for six days, so per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I recommend the deletion notice be removed. Any objections? Aelffin 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an election. I stated my concerns in my nomination of the article. And there are serious problems with the sources cited, see WP:RS. Let the tag be removed in the normal course of events, not in the way you suggest.--Wehwalt 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what is the normal course of events? Doesn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion say a deletion should be debated for no more than five days? Quote: Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. Aelffin 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

An administrator does it.--Wehwalt 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Aelffin 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see this relisted for further discussion. Basicly, this AfD got little attention until an editor contacted all editors who ever edited this article and notified them of the AfD nomination. While that is not an illegitimate technique, I am not quite sure that is how AfD is supposed to run. I suggest relisting to allow for a further consensus from the WP community.--Wehwalt 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing improper about notifying editors who's work, and history, is threatened to be destroyed by deletion. Many seeking Deletion improperly complain about WP:CANVASS being violated. This is wrong. What is at stake here is notice and opportunity to be heard for editors, who are volunteers of a non-profit having their work tossed out. I did not invite stranger to the article to meddle. I did not invite my "peeps." I invited all participants in editing the article. In fact, because by placing the AfD tag you technically "contributed" to the article, I invited you too. Without notice and an opportunity to be heard for interested parties any discussion process is hopelessly flawed. You are not entitled to a "do-over" because you don't like the results.Edivorce 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd like to add that listing the article as an AfD wasn't proper in the first place, because as far as I can tell, no attempt was made to take any of the steps listed in WP:AfD section Before nominating an AfD, and none of the criteria listed on WP:DP were cited as grounds for deletion. I'll be happy to support a re-listing as an AfD after such actions are taken, and if reasonable grounds are cited. Aelffin 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Under Deletion Guidlines for Administrators the correct action if any doubt exists is to not delete. "When in doubt don't delete"---not when indoubt give the Deleter another chance. The nominator didn't meet his burden. Edivorce 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That big tag at the top of the page should certainly make editors feel welcome. It seems to me to be intended to chill speech. Editors coming to this page after receiving notice are not doing anything wrong. Nobody said it was an election. I understand full well what consensus means. It does not mean one users opinion. Edivorce 20:01, 29 January 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.