Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Shakespeare

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. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Shakespeare

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

Non-notable website. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By gum, I actually found a reliable source — "Call for Advisors: Open Source Shakespeare," (2006) from the web site of Shaksper, the Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference, including a short history of origins, etc. I think this article is written in a promotional manner, with external links in the body of the piece instead of where they belong, but this is ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spend a few minutes getting that material integrated into the piece and getting this thing up to our basic standards. Hold the phone... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even better source, coverage of the project on a site of George Mason University, entitled "Alumnus Makes Shakespeare’s Works Easy to Search." Carrite (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm done. A pretty clear Keep now, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure blogs and email listservs are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. The only other citation is an alumni news article, which is not exactly an independent third-party source. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that for the purposes of establishing notability, SHAKSPER is not "a listserv" or "a mailinglist", nor even "an academic listserv". While the techincal implementation is a listserv, SHAKSPER was conceived as an "electronic conference" whose participants include at least several of the editors of the critical editions of the plays from both Arden and Oxford and several other professional as well as unaffiliated Shakespeare and Elizajacobean scholars. The list is moderated (by Hardy M. Cook) and is frequently cited in papers, journal articles, and even books (from OUP, Cambridge, etc.). While it does not quite reach the level of an academic journal (there's no double-blind review etc.), you would be closer to the mark to consider it akin to the proceedings of a relevant conference or similar. Its closest kin would probably be Notes & Queries and TLS. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing enough Google Books search results to indicate it meets WP:WEB e.g. 1a, 1b, 2, 3. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—If you search Google Books for "Open Source Shakespeare" you'll find several mentions, for instance from works such as The New Cambridge companion to Shakespeare edited by Margreta De Grazia and Stanley Wells (both well known Shakespearean scholars, and the New Cambridge Shakespeare series is of great renown); and if you do the same on Google Scholar you'll find similarly numerous results from purely academic sources. I am not sure I would have chosen to create an article on it had it not existed, but I think there is ample grounds for establishing general notability now that it does exist. --Xover (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2012 (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.