Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Unpopular Culture

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Unpopular Culture[edit]

Organization is not notable.
Only reputable source San Francisco Chronicle may not be as reliable as it once was.
Remaining sources SF Weekly and East Bay Express are reliable only for facts about what is happening in the Bay Area but their reporting may not be thoroughly fact-checked.
Some of the article may be original research
The Article uses a link to its own website as a source
The article appears to be somewhat promotional in nature

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the citations provided in the article seem to indicate otherwise. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the citations provided, all appear to be purely local, and all but one are free weekly tabloids, so I'm not seeing any actual sign of notability or sources which show other-wise. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you consider the San Francisco Chronicle to be "purely local"? It is ranked 12th by circulation nationally, so I'm not sure what your concern is with that particular source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I consider it 'purely local', given that it is exactly that, both in general and here, functionally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, please point me to the policy that states that only nationally-distributed newspapers are reliable sources. Short of that, the "only local" position to reject a source seems inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's article on the Chronicle. has old information. The Chronicle is no longer 12th in circulation but more like 20th and it's in competition with papers that actually charge, and the SF Chronicle is giving it away for free. When I lived in San Francisco, I had to call them every 6 months to tell them to stop littering the driveway. It was once a respectable paper but has been a free tabloid for about 10 years now. Check it's ratings on Yelp. As a reliable source, I think it should be questioned, at least when it comes to entertainment sections that are fluffy interviews or pieces whose main goal is clearly meant to promote some upcoming event. In addition, please look at SF Weekly. Wikipedians have stated in that article that the news coverage is erratic. It is certainly reliable to find out what is happening when, but there is no shortage of people complaining about it's accuracy, even in its own editorial pages. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although stronger citations are always desirable, the SF Chronicle article combined with the the various (certainly weaker) free weekly publications seems to pass the notability guidelines for multiple verifiable secondary sources. While this is far from a strong article, to be honest my first impression is there is a seemingly antagonistic level of "citation needed" and "clarification needed" messages thrown around, often right on top of citations and links (e.g. "citation needed" tag on Cassandra Richardson being a former IFUC CFO when millimeters away is a link to a page with this person's bio, which states she was the CFO of IFUC). I'm have zero problems with someone using "X needed" to prompt useful work and keep other editors honest, but the current look feels destructive rather than constructive. -Markeer 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my impression is that of relentless self-promotion, based on this and the related David Ferguson (impresario) page. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag. The link leads to what appears to be a self-promotional site with a biography that sounds like a press release. Does that really meet WP:RS? --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization seems notable enough to me to warrant a small page. It should be cleaned up, however...also, the website of the institute should not be used as a reference but rather should appear in an "External Links" section. Cazort (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Ferguson (impresario). There are a number of problems with this article, primarily having to do with the poor sources. For instance, a press release is not a good source: David Ferguson Joins Subculture Books. Nor is a non-fact-checked Q&A with the main subject: Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right. Nor are entertainment section articles written without fact-checking (see the last letter on this page: SF Weekly: Letters to the Editor: Con Art: Poorly spoken). Once you take out all of the above, you're left with a whole lot of not much—so just add that small bit on to Ferguson's article. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Two things. First, regarding the claim that only SF media has reported on IFUC. Over the course of its 20 year history, IFUC has been mentioned or covered in multiple sources outside of San Francisco.

New York Foundation for the Arts. Fall 1997 (http://ifuc.org/articles/fyi_barrymcgee.jpg)

Forbes Magazine. May 18, 1998(http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0518/6110336a.html)

In November 2003, The PRO was also profiled on CBS Radio's The Osgood File(http://www.acfnewsource.org/art/punk_orchestra.html), a nationwide radio show that is today aired on 381 CBS radio network stations with a total listenership of approximately 8 million. The transcript of PRO's appearance on the Osgood show (http://www.punkrockorchestra.com/osgood.php) says "The Punk Rock Orchestra is the brainchild of David Ferguson, Director of the Institute for Unpopular Culture (IFUC)."

On April 24, 2004, the Punk Rock Orchestra (PRO), was featured on NPR's Weekend Edition...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1850470

Second, 'uwishiwasjohng' is providing inaccurate information about the San Francisco Chronicle. The SF Chronicle has never been a free newspaper (unless during limited promotional runs). It is the SF Examiner that is now a free newspaper. Regarding uwishiwasjohng's circulation numbers. Editor and Publisher showed a circulation, as of March 31, 2008 of 370,345, ranking the SF Chronicle 12th in circulation among U.S. newspapers. Audit Bureau of Circulations(ABC) statistics, which keeps official statistics on newspaper circulation, also shows the SF Chronicle with the 12th largest circulation -- not 20th -- among all U.S. newspapers with a total paid circulation of 339,430 (as of October 2008).

The links for the circulation numbers:

www.sfgate.com article displaying Audit Bureau of Circulations statistics through October 2008 (posted at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/28/BU0113P1HJ.DTL&type=printable)

Editor and Publisher statistics thru March 31, 2008 (posted at http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/05/01/newspaper-circulation-figures-as-of-march-31-2008)

NOTE - according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the combined total of online (Chronicle is found at www.SFgate.com, a site accessible, obviously, to anyone in the world with a computer and a browser) and print readership is 2.05 million - a figure which had increased in the year leading up the October 2008 publication of the Bureau's circulation statistics.

DrJamesX (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX[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.