Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Heraldic Registry

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. The keep arguments are almost a poster child of how not to refute a well argued case for deletion based on a lack of sourcing. They therefore did not prevail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Heraldic Registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unresolved notability tag for 2 years. Entire article fails GNG. Article is about an online single proprietorship company with no RS provided in article and none easily discoverable following a cursory search (note, that there are a smattering of references discoverable, but these are primarily from blogs and message boards and the websites of heraldry clubs, not RS). BlueSalix (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1 - The claim is incorrect. The USHR is not a single proprietorship company. It offers a free service to all armigers in the world. Armigers can opt for a printed certificate to be mailed to their home. This is admittedly charged, but only so much as to off set the cost of printing and posting internationally.

2 - Heraldry is a very niche market specialist topic. There are no more than a dozen printed heraldry journals in the world, most have gone over to digital publications. There will not be dozens of sources for any heraldry topic. Even the quality newspapers consistently get it wrong.

3 - No article on Wikipedia has ever been improved by deleting it. If it does not meet standards it should be improved, not removed. The USHR is notable, if only to the 500+ armigers worldwide who have registered with them. --Kiltpin (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons cited above, as well as the fact that the registry is cited by respected heraldic societies (the American Heraldry society is sourced in the article, but many others cite their registrations, eg http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/membersarms/kimonandreou.htm). The registry is cited by scholars such as Nick Birch, 2014, "Branding Harvard", Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH. The registry is important within the narrow field of American heraldry, as much as a reference tool as for the services it offers. I should think Wikipedia over time will have more and more complete information on the assumption of arms, and all the legal ramificaitons and implications contained in the subject; when that happens the USHR will certainly come up as well and be talked about further. Then the need for this article will be all the more apparent. --Marlow4 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This has now been re-listed twice and the consensus is to Keep. How many more times will it be re-listed? --Kiltpin (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article provides no indication of notability as described at WP:GNG, which would require substantial third-party coverage. The people advocating "keep" above have few contributions, and the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest.  Sandstein  15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weasel Words! We are supposed to be discussing the article not the quality of the editors with different opinions. Check out Commons before deciding I have "few contributions". As for "the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest", the comments might also indicate that Kiltpin is a neutral observer who has a specialist knowledge of heraldry and coats of arms. --Kiltpin (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2015 (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.