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 Speedy keep by means of uninanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Creative Anachronism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. Seems to be mostly original research and all provided sources are from the organization itself. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons to keep an article that fails core policies. The Parsnip! 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Long-standing organization with lots and lots of news coverage. JavaTenor 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure: this user has never participated in an SCA event and thinks they're a little silly. :) JavaTenor 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Clearly notable international organization with widespread coverage, as JavaTenor points out. The article could stand to cite some relevant third-party sources; but deletion is unwarranted. Deor 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why isn't any of the news coverage in the article? It needs to be included to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. The Parsnip! 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Very popular and notable organization. Could use some cleaning up but very easily qualifies for an article. Dipics 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Deor. (Full COI disclosure: I'm a longtime member) --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - extensively notable; AfD is for deletion, not clean-up. --Haemo 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All speedy keep "votes" are based on OR! If sources exist, introduce them. The article fails core policies. As quoted from WP:V "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The Parsnip! 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been clearly shown that multiple reliable sources exist, and could be added. Tag it for clean-up, don't delete it on such a basis. --Haemo 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you quoted says "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources", not "if the article cites no RTPS…". Deor 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. If no sources exist, delete the article. If (as is the case here) a large number of sources exist, ((sofixit)). JavaTenor 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Piling on per above. Easily verifiable and highly notable. Tag for cleanup and let's get busy doing same. This is the organization that keeps User:Finngall off the streets for goshsakes... (COI disclosure: sister and longtime friend of SCA members) Katr67 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep As above, as above, and as above (and disclosure: also a member). --Avery W. Krouse 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close. A google search (yes, I know....) turns up 275,000+ results. These people have strong presences at various rennaisance faires throughout the world, let alone the US of A, is VERY well known within the reenactment communities (amongst a few others). I smell a WP:POINT, but I don't know what it is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI disclosure: I'm not a member, I just like the costumes. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.