Wiki143:Articles for deletion/College of Dracology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

College of Dracology

Template:La – (View log)

non-notable organization, no independent sources --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. JJL 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it doesn't seem there's any widespread notice of this minor organization. I'm willing to change that though if some sources can be provided, or coverage of their newsletter. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Coverage of their newsletter has been demonstrated - see below Ednan 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please provide those citations. FrozenPurpleCube 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Darren S. A. George, Heraldry in Canada, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2005, p 35 and Darren S. A. George, Heraldry in Canada, Vol. 40, 2006, p. 60.Tressure 23:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell us about them. What do those articles have to say? Do you have online copies, or scans? For all I know, they don't exist, and they don't make for reliable sources simply by name. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
They are both articles concerning obscure heraldic monsters- the first deals with lion-human hybrids (including manticores), and the second deals with centaurs, satyrs and related hybrids. I may have time to scan the first one for you later today- where shall I send it? I can't scan the second, since Heraldry in Canada switched to an annual format that year, and the spine won't take scanning.
Okay, the first article mentioned has been posted as a PDF file at http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5a.pdf, http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5b.pdf, and http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5c.pdf. This is from Heraldry in Canada, Volume 39, No. 4, Winter 2005, ISSN 0441-6619.Tressure 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where the College of Dracology is mentioned in this article; I do see a citation to Dragonlore but this does not establish the College's notability as such.

--Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article isn't about the College of Dracology, so it does nothing to establish the notability of that subject. Since the others are apparently the same from the description you've provided, it's not enough to go by. FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article cites Dragonlore, which shows (as I have stated) that the College of Dracology's newsletter is read by heraldists internationally. If you want a full article discussing the College itself, I'm afraid I haven't got one.Tressure 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But I have, as I have already stated below. It is The Coat of Arms (ISSN 0010-003X), XV (new series) no.206, 223-231 Ednan 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that means you don't have a third party source about this organization, which calls into question what you can say about it. If the book/journal named above does indeed cover it, that might mean something, but without seeing it, or even an index of it, how can we know that the claim is true? FrozenPurpleCube 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article about Dragonlore is real, but it is written by R. Brocklebank, who is a founder of the College. http://direct.bl.uk/research/58/21/RN152606113.html Polenth 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't qualify as an independent source, then. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. The fact that the article has been accepted for publication by the editorial committee of the The Coat of Arms makes it "independent". A reputable journal like The Coat of Arms does not publish spurious or self-promotion articles. See their guidance for contributors which states: "All articles will be considered by members of the editorial committee or other relevant experts before being accepted for publication." The Heraldry Society (one of the leading organizations in the world devoted to studying heraldry) clearly regards the College of Dracology to be notable enough to warrant an article about it in its journal! Ednan 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: the only publication about the College itself that's been published by someone other than the College is by the College's founder. This is not a strong indication of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a concern that this person is the founder of the college and writing about it. I'd certainly accept it for content purposes, but to establish the overall notability of the organization? I'm not sure if it works, even if published by somebody else. Still, it could work. But without a summary of the article, it's hard to be sure. The title is simply "The World of Dragonlore" which could mean a lot of things. FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Surely a founder of the College of Dracology is one of the very best people to write an article about the organisation, as he will know it inside out. The article in in question begins with the statement: “Dragonlore is the name of a Newsletter or Journal issued at irregular intervals by The College of Dracology for the Study of Fabulous Beasts.” It then goes on to give details of the history of the College and the journal, illustrated with numerous examples of front covers of Dragonlore (which feature mythical beasts). The origin of the word “dracology” is discussed. On p226 brief information about membership of the College is given. The article then continues with illustrated examples of certain beasts that have been studied and reported on by the College (e.g. manticor, enfield, iguana, lamia). At the end of the article there are two further pages (pp230-1) reproducing an article that appeared in Dragonlore in 2002 on three-fold cubic symmetry with a family of fabulous beasts. Ednan 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hence my willingness to accept the content for use in the article. Now convince me to have the article with third-party sources. Slight difference, but an important one. FrozenPurpleCube 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if the organization is notable, people who are not connected with the organization will write about it. So far, we've seen no indication that this has happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not the only test of notability. It has already been shown that: 1) The College's journal (Dragonlore) is cited in other heraldic publications; 2) A prestigious heraldic organisation (The Heraldry Society) is willing to publish a lengthy article about the College in its refereed journal. I think that demonstates notablility. Ednan 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep The College of Dracology may not be as notable as, say, The Heraldry Society, but it is taken seriously by heraldists in the United Kingdom, many of whom are members of both organisations. It is notable enough for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Bristol to include among his list of memberships of other bodies [1].Ednan
Nope, a person being a member isn't in itself a reason to keep an article. Try finding sources actually on this society. FrozenPurpleCube`
Right, here is one: The Coat of Arms (ISSN 0010-003X), XV (new series) no.206, 223-231. Ednan 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything there about this society specifically. Exactly what would you be pointing to? You do need to be specific. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to the article given by the journal reference - now in bold and italics (not to the webpage link, which is to a page about the journal to show sceptics that it exists). I note, by the way, your comment above about references: "For all I know, they don't exist, and they don't make for reliable sources simply by name". You are now being unreasonable. Are you expecting every reference cited on Wikipedia to be scanned and uploaded? (There would certainly be copyright issues there!) At some stage you either have to believe the contributer, or get down to your local library inter-library loans department, order copies of the references and verify them yourself. Ednan 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that I'm being unreasonable, I'm merely pointing out that not everybody has access to certain sources. The way to respond is not to say "I'm not going to do that" but to offer some demonstration of the sources directly. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not going to order something just to prove whether or not your sources exist and say what you say they do. It'd be much simpler for you to just scan a page so everybody can see it. That alone might be enough to pass muster. However, I'm not going to take your word for it. Sorry, but Wikipedia has run into problems with that before. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to propose those articles for deletion, or if you wish put {{importance}} or other such tags on them. FrozenPurpleCube 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't be nominating these articles for deletion becuase I am quite happy that they are notable organisations worthy of an entry in Wikipedia, just as the College of Dracology is. Ednan 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you can try the tag I suggested, otherwise somebody might well decide to nominate it for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's indeed notable on your side of the Atlantic, then show it, don't just assert it. As for the other institutions, I see no reason to keep them myself, in fact, I've said right above that they could be deleted, or tagged if they are a problem. Therefore accusing me, or anyone else of bias is highly unwarranted. In fact, the whole argument that these other pages exist is a widely known one on Wikipedia AFD, and it's highly unlikely to convince anyone. I suggest you read WP:ATA to see why.
  • Strong delete: the external link in the article shows that this is something made up in school one day - admittedly one day in the 1940's. RLIN has no listing at all for Dragonlore (there is an unrelated book by the title which links here) - by contrast they have dozens for Coat of Arms.
The article from Coat of Arms is by Brocklebank, and says that the College was invented by a group of boys and girls at a West Country school, which dispersed at the end of the year. Brocklebank's hopes of continuing this over the summer dissolved, although he went as far as commissioning a newsletter at the local printers' (they had a fire). He has now restarted Dragonlore in his retirement; it's a four- to eight-page desktop publication, mostly in black and white (and, since he began with the newsletter which didn't get printed when he was at school, much of it is anachronistically dated.)
In short, this is a one-man fanzine, with a spoof society to go with it. Brocklebank himself may be notable (he is a Fellow of the Heraldry Society); but neither the College nor its publication is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No claim to notability, and the debate here merely reinforces that fact. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per PMAnderson. There are huge numbers of similarly productive small fannish communities, nowadays on the web, that we wouldn't even think of including on WP. The older start date of this one adds a little interest, but not enough, and the fact that they publish their fanac on paper instead of on the web doesn't seem important to me. —David Eppstein 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/College_of_Dracology&oldid=4805670"