Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feel Tank Chicago (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Tank Chicago

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Looks like a load of

RS. Last AfD discussion 13 years ago [1]; little change since [2]. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP - As usual I started out ready to delete this, but once I did my
WP:BEFORE sources popped up: 1 2 3 4 5. whilst the subject matter might seem like nonsense, well, this doesn't make it not encyclopedic. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

All but #3 are primary, and the author of source #3 doesn't seem notable. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject being "fashionable nonsense" does have relevance to this discussion: first as a heuristic indicating that this has no scholarly importance and doesn't pass
WP:NOTABILITY; and second as an indication for how we should write about it if it does (eg. as pseudoscience or fringe). François Robere (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
Jovanmilic97: Ann Cvetkovich (s. 2) is affiliated with the "Public Feelings Project", of which FTC is a part; notice that on p. 170 she refers to FTC as "one of our cells". Deborah Gould (s. 4) is mentioned here as a founder of FTC (as Debbie Gould); you'll notice in the first end note she refers to FTC as her "collaborators" and thanks them "for our ongoing conversation". François Robere (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Even with that, there are a lot more scholar hits to be considered 1 2 3 4 5 6. I can't see anything more of these articles than the snippets in the Google search interface but they appear to discuss the subject and are not written by Berlant or Cvetkovich. Per

WP:NEXIST it appears sources likely exist to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've no access to this one. It mentiones Cvet. in the abstract, but doesn't seem otherwise related.
Same, with Berlant.
Review of Cvet., mentions FTC in passing ("For Cvetkovich, this term refers to a project in which the author and like-minded participants formed groups such as 'Feel Tank Chicago'...").
Primary source - was invited by FTC to perform work.
Already cited as s. 3 in the previous batch. Seems like the only relevant secondary source.
Doesn't mention FTC.

François Robere (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not much beyond content written by the founders.-
WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. Irrespective of one's opinion about the group's purpose and activities, the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for
WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete After assessing everything up until now, Francois is right. There are not enough independent secondary sources that cover this organization in detail, making it fail
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2019 (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.