Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society

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. for now, the main article appears to be notable and if the sub-articles aren't they can be nominated separately or merged without an AFD discussion. Black Kite 13:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society

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

Article continues to be without independent verification (WP:V) or assertion of notability (WP:N). Web search shows a few commercial web sites, nothing that looks usable. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for various productions of this organization, as they also continue to be without verification or notability.

Delete Unless someone comes up with some WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. At the very least, the HPLHS passes WP:CREATIVE as an entity. I will find some sourcing in the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example Google news archive finds three (presumably, although one looks like it might not be...) reliable sources for A Shoggoth on the Roof.
- Google Books shows two explicit mentions.
- Nothing on ASotR in Google Scholar, but there is a thesis on HPLHS.

I've tagged HPLHS and ASotR for rescue. Quite possibly some of the other articles could reasonably be merged, but I haven't looked into them yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Silly me--just about everything I found is available with the search tools on top of the page. It's clear that the efforts to source the content didn't extend to any of those tools. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most, but suggest the nom speedy-close this and relist seperately, as it's apparent these aren't all of equal (non)notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will consider splitting off the additional nominations tomorrow morning. Marasmusine (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is perhaps some scope for merger but that's not deletion. The aggregate topic is notable and I have added some citations to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, merge case can be made later. Very well known organisation creating well respeceted works within it's field. Artw (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as said above this is a very well known group within its field and its creations are well known and available on mainstream places such as Amazon and Netflix, and there is precedent for both fan clubs and audio dramas. For example, the Dark Adventure articles have more information on them than most of the various Doctor Who Big Finish audio dramas, of which there are hundreds of articles and not one has ever been nominated for merger/deletion. Kuralyov (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge others into the main - While I don't object to combined nominations when all of the pages are roughly the same, this is a bad set to be combining. While the main troupe may meet notability, I find it very hard to believe that every work they've performed somehow is entitled to a page. As for the merge, these other pages are nearly stubs as well, and it would make a lot more sense to have these all in one place, both for readers and for consistency. I see no upside to all of these being separate. Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge others into the main one robust article is better than fragments. If I have time I will help out with sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy with the new sourcing, therefore the main article makes a valid target for merging/redirecting any associated articles that don't have enough coverage, per WP:PRODUCT. Thanks everyone, Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I'd like to further advocate that A Shoggoth on the Roof be kept as a separate article. It's unique among these works in that its parody of a major work (Fiddler) has created enough independent coverage to merit a separate article. Failing that, a merge is certainly better than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows plenty of mention of this society, including an interview with one of its founders in Wired magazine. [1] Dream Focus 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the Colonel and Dream Focus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the article has grown substantially since nominated for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep main, but merge others into the main, as suggested above. --Bejnar (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2010 (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.