This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stalwart111 (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 31 May 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:14, 31 May 2014 by Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Living History of Illinois and Chicago
- Living History of Illinois and Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of reliable, independent coverage of any depth, failing to meet the criteria per WP:GROUP and WP:GNG. Creator of article appears to be the group's founder. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - User is a trusted group reviewer on some wikis. The Living History of Illinois and Chicago is a real group. Many famous members and contributors have posted history and photographs. Before considering deletion, look at the depth of the postings and photos presented. There are some major articles and news stories in the works. Citations were added.
- Notability of an organization is not inherited through its members, per WP:ORGSIG. The new references are simply results of a Facebook search (primary sources of an unreliable source), and the examples may be cherry-picked to increase the apparent notability, which may constitute original research. Only if reliable, independent sources assert the claim of "many famous members" can it be considered evidence of notability, but still may not satisfy the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG.--Animalparty-- (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- --Animalparty-- is absolutely right, though I don't think it would satisfy those criteria. There are plenty of committees, councils and forums with notable members which aren't themselves notable. A collective with notable members isn't necessarily a notable collective. Stalwart111 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Notability of an organization is not inherited through its members, per WP:ORGSIG. The new references are simply results of a Facebook search (primary sources of an unreliable source), and the examples may be cherry-picked to increase the apparent notability, which may constitute original research. Only if reliable, independent sources assert the claim of "many famous members" can it be considered evidence of notability, but still may not satisfy the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG.--Animalparty-- (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - realness or not is irrelevant. Famous members or not is irrelevant. The standing of the creator is irrelevant. "Depth of postings" is irrelevant. The group needs to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. It hasn't so it doesn't. Stalwart111 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Zeus 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)