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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young radicals

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance for this student organization. There are no results related to this 1920s club in a google news including "Columbia University" where it was ostensibly active. I considered proding but perhaps some editor can uncover something that Google doesn't know about. BelloWello (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't a "university club" and was improperly stubbed as politically-related rather than philosophy-related. This seems to be a group of philosophy co-thinkers, a trend, something like Young Hegelians. I have no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness myself, but be sure you are looking in the right places for additional sourcing and please do tread lightly here. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to reiterate Carrite's point above, we are definitely talking about a group characterised by intellectual affinity – more Vienna Circle than Marlowe Society. I'd be a lot less inclined towards deletion than if this were such an organisation. Skomorokh 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have significant coverage in reliable sources for that? I looked quite extensively both when I nominated and after Carrite's comment and didn't come up with anything significant. bW 23:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon? I did not address sourcing in my initial comment, only the scope of the topic at hand. Skomorokh 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, alright, I reread your comment, I completely misread it. My bad. bW 04:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source listed indicates that these are philosophers of the school of pragmatic naturalism. That title (which is currently a redlink) might make a good topic as there are books devoted to it. Young radicals is not a useful search term though as it does not seem to be the name of the school and so the phrase is just being used in a general way. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Colonel Warden, the term itself is not useful when searching for reliable sources; hundreds upon thousands of passing mentions that we would have to sift through to find information on this group, if reliable sources even exist online. That seems to be the epitome of not verifiable to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It galls me than a fairly incompetent deletion nomination by a blocked editor is going to stand, but the Colonel's point above that the search term is insufficient and unlikely to be used in searching Wikipedia is a good one. I still have a strong hunch that there is probably an article here, but it may well be best if somebody takes that on from scratch at some future date. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the ANI board regarding the mass nomination of pornographic actresses, RL0919 mentioned that, as long as there are delete votes, the nominator's status is irrelevant. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2011 (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.