Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Densa (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. —Kurykh 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa

References that establish WP:N and WP:V do not exist. Article fails both guidelines. AFDed over a month ago, result was "keep", but it was determined that the single reference from a reliable source only included a trivial passing mention. The "organization's" website is someone's personal Comcast homepage they got for using Comcast as their ISP. No improvement to article since May, therefore I don't think it CAN be improved as no reliable third-party sources exist. Not Notable. The Parsnip! 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If it has survived two AFD's including one just a month or so ago, then obiviously people think it belongs here. I belong to Mensa and know from personal experience that the term has been around for more than 30 years and is often used in conversation among Mensans. Postcard Cathy 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, you know. Just because it got voted Keep last time, doesn't mean it'll always be a keeper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there're a couple sources, but per the previous discussion, it seems that sources have been few and far between. Therefore, I doubt its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references added by User:Chubbles1212. Notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The (apparently fictional) group or meme flourished long before the internet came along. It has been mentioned in a humorous context in several articles in major newspapers. I have added back the reference section which the nominator removed from the article before launching this AFD, along with an article by Boxer in the New York Times (1999) which the nominator thought too trivial to prove notability (ok) but then deleted (not ok). Even a few words about something in a major newspaper establishes it is not a hoax, and shows that it has some some currency in the culture. I have added back an article by McGowan in the New York Times (1987) which the nominator deleted because he/she could not find it in the New York Times index. It shows up in Proquest.(Surprise: The New York Times index is not perfect). I added a mention in a Wall Street Journal article by Queenan (1989). Additionally, in the previous AFD, launched by the same nominator last month, UncleG pointed out the following references, quote "The Colorado Springs Gazette ("Mensa sound too tough? Densa may be more your style", 1994-09-22), The Miami Herald ("Are you Mensa or a Densa?", Don Shoemaker, 1983-10-12), and The Syracuse Herald-Journal ("Densa: The club for people who dare to be dense", Maryln Schwartz, 1983-09-13). " This shows that the stub article has plenty of sources not yet added, to allow expansion and improvement, even if these articles are not all handy to look at free on the internet. Edison 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Per nom.--Bryson 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. Dalejenkins 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per Edison. There's some sources. ~Ed Boy^[c] 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup but has enough sources (NYT mentions especially) to pass notability. Chubbles 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the sources; don't just vote and assume they're correct. All of the one's I've read—the Boxer piece especially—shows everything contrary to the article's ability to pass as notable. --CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an interesting article from a Mensa journal describing the exact circumstances of the August 1974 initial appearance of "Densa- the low IQ organization" in the journal of the Boston Mensa group. They were an early meme, appearing as the subjects of a series of article widely reprinted in Mensa journals before spreading to college papers, with people creating their own quizzes, etc. and later creating websites and t-shirts. The idea of Densa was enjoyed both by folks in Mensa and by the rest of us. As a meme it may have been reinvented by people who had only heard the name, and those who generally thought "Mensa" and "IQ" were four letter words. Presently, 33 years later, see how pervasive a meme it still is. Googling "mensa densa" finds it mentioned in 56,000 hits. The inclusion of mensa is suggested to avoid the numerous occurrences of the Spanish word "densa". Edison 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon looking at the sources that Edison provided on the article's talk page ([1][2]), I'm even more convinced of Densa's lack of notability. Though these sources don't match up to WP:V standards, assuming that they're correct, "Densa" was created as a subject for various puzzles for the Boston area Mensa chapter: it isn't an actual organization. This certainly matches up with the other "sources" available for Densa, such as the Boxer article in the New York Times, where the mention of Densa is just as trivial (Boxer's article is a humor piece, not an actual article about anything. In it, Densa is mentioned once, and only fleetingly). If anyone wants to put a bit about Densa on Mensa International, feel free, but it certainly doesn't belong in its own article. Frankly, the people at Talk:Mensa International don't want it there, and I don't blame them. ---CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See below --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and format better. Well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since people seem to want to vote without bothering to actually read any of the sources, I've taken the liberty of posting the full text of the Boxer piece:

rm copvio

It appeared in the B section of the New York Times in the "Arts & Ideas/Cultural Desk" section. --CA387 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you ever read WP:COPYVIO and are you familiar with the "fair use" concept when it comes to pasting entire copyrighted works into Wikipedia? That said, even a 2 sentence reference to something in a New York Times article from 1999 can be useful in showing it is not something someone made up in school yesterday, and for a meme, such articles over a period of many years show its endurance as a fictional organization. Edison 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was under the impression that was for article content, not things on talk pages. If it presents a significant problem, please remove it. However, as a common fictional organization parodying Mensa, I'm okay with it as a part of the Mensa article (a redirect was proposed by another user to the same extent in previous AfDs). --CA387 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-known parody, with years of newspaper references. How many times do we have to go through this? Clarityfiend 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Lexis-Nexis search and found a bunch of articles that mention the organization; I added three more refs to the article. Chubbles 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CA387. Elbowdrop 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't have to actually be funny, though I think it is; if so many good newspapers have articles--and over a 20 year period, it's important. DGG 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a joke created by another group, it doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia standards for notability. DreamGuy 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how many press references do we need to dig up to establish notability? Chubbles 00:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability has only been established in relation to Mensa. Alone, nothing has been given to show that Densa merits its own article. --CA387 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do not see anything in WP:N that says something has to be the only subject of a news story for the coverage to ocount toward satisfying notability. There are also several article where Densa is the primary subject, with Mensa along for the ride. Then there is the book which is only about Densa. Edison 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I haven't read the book, but we seem to have quite a number of sources now—certainly enough to justify this article. The prose of the article is much better than it was for the past two AfDs, as well (I've just done some WP:MOS editing, and clarified that the organization is fictional). I've been finding more and more that I'm playing devil's advocate rather than arguing a sturdy position, so I'm changing my vote. --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I agree it seems to be fictional, although we obviously cannot prove than there was never some group of people who met weekly at a bar and called it a "Densa chapter meeting." As a fictional organization or meme, this shows the need for a WP:MEME to supplement such guidelines as WP:ORG which hardly seems to fit fictional organizations. The rejected WP:MEME would need to be expanded to include pre-internet memes. And as for the 1987 McGowan article in the New York Times not showing up in a search of the NY Times index, as was asserted in the talk page of the article, I find it at [3], but I no longer have access to it and I do not recall how much was in it about Densa. Edison 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:5P "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" not a joke.Tstrobaugh 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-known jokes are encyclopedic. Chubbles 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably right, why isn't it under Category:Joke organizations?Tstrobaugh 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:00, 4 July 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.