User talk:TGut212

ISPE

It will be a day or so before I am able to reply properly. Meanwhile, read WP:Notability, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the pages you mentioned, which is the whole reason I wrote about the third party references which were specified in the deletion history. If there was another part of relevance missing, then I did not find that mentioned in the delete history talk page, so I only addressed what was stated as the reason for deletion. I'll go through the deletion history for the article again and see if I missed something. Don't worry about time, I just wanted to ask you. If you still think that there is a reason not to reinstate the article, I'd like to hear it but I won't pursue it much further than this. =) Thank you for your rapid reply. TGut212 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this reply has been less rapid. Ida Fleiß and the two Guinness Book references were already in the deleted article, also a reference to Time (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945865-2,00.html - behind paywall) and to two books called The Ultimate IQ Challenge and The Ultimate IQ Book; so the commenters at the AfD were not convinced by them. Robert Famighetti and Daniel Price are new. I think the critical question is, how substantial are their mentions of ISPE? The relevant passage from the WP:General notability guideline is:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

You say, for instance, that Famighetti "mentions" ISPE under "Associations and societies". If that is just an entry in a list, or simply repeats the ISPE's description of itself, that won't count for much.

If you like, I will restore the article into a "Userspace draft" page where you can work on it; but unless your new sources provide some substantial coverage, or you can find some, I am afraid you will be wasting your time. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit frustrating that Wikipedia doesn't seem to allow me to see the deleted article, since that means I don't see what references that one had.^^ I'm not currently interested in investing as much time as would seem necessary to reinstate the article at the moment, seeing as some of the references I found were included already. I do still believe that it is relevant, just definitely not my #1 priority at the moment. I'll casually look around for better mentions in the literature about such societies and the psychology of IQ. When I have found more and better resources, in a way that I believe will be enough to sustain the article, I will contact you again, if that is okay with you. Thanks a lot for your time. TGut212 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you are seriously interested, I see no harm in "userfying" it for you: it is now at User:TGut212/nternational Society for Philosophical Enquiry. Check with me before submitting any new version, or if you decide that you are not going to pursue it. No problem leaving it there for a few weeks, but if it is going to be several months before you get round to it, it would be better to re-delete - it can always be disinterred again later, if you want to come back to it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]