Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Academic Hammock Society

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arizona Academic Hammock Society
"A student run orginization, started at The University of Arizona in 2004, The Arizona Academic Hammock Society promotes the use of hammocks in educational settings to enhance the academic process."--nixie 13:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

page is unbiased and encyclopedic This article is encyclopedic regarding the groundbreaking nature of this orginization. It provides a resource for other institutions and idividuals to use in identifying what this 'Academic Hammock Society' is and learning about it's history and the history surrounding the movment. Though it is too terse at this point in time.
 * the above edit is by 68.228.37.166, who has fewer than 10 total edits. -- BD Abram son thi m k 14:20, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * That is certainly not a good advertisement for the academic standards of the U of A. RickK 16:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How could an article that clearly advocates a position and that is written in the first person possibly be encyclopedic? Delete this non-notable student club. android&harr;talk 14:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, apparently the members spend so much time in hammocks that they never learn how to properly spell 'unbiased' or 'encyclopedic' :) Delete. Radiant_* 14:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although the tone of what is currently written may not be encyclopedic yet, with revision it can be made more so. As for the validity of the orginization having a listing with in an encyclopedia, I believe it has it.  The club is a legitimate legal entity, has a large membership and has recieved significant local press (in the Tucson Citizen). With revision, I vote keep. nathanpbell 17:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * User has about a dozen edits, and should consider reading WP:VAIN.
 * My vote is mostly based on the legitimacy of the title and subject matter. I do agree that the content needs some major revision to more accurately (and unbiasedly) reflect the nature and importance of the organization.  But the comments so far have talked more about the legitimacy of the organization as an academic entity and less about the content actually inside.  As I said before the organization is a legal entity with real membership that has recieved significant press and warrants an article if someone is willing to write it.  My vote remains. nathanpbell 17:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What does it mean for a University club to be a "legal entity," and what significant press coverage are you referring to? I've been able to find one article in the Tucson Citizen's "Living" section, which I would hardly call significant. Please do have a look at WP:VAIN, as I notice you're quoted in the article. android&harr;talk 18:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:VAIN, real but not encyclopedically significant campus group. There are dozens of such groups at virtually every college and university in the English-speaking world, or tens of thousands of groups in total.  WP precedent has been that such a group gets an article only if substantial notability (beyond campus) is demonstrated.  There's no indication that the AAHS (one hammock!) has garnered as much attention even locally as other groups on that campus.  Apparently the members spend so much time in hammocks (or sharing the group's one) that they never learn how to properly define 'encyclopedic'.  Barno 18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For How much y'all abide by the rules, how about reading your own WP:VAIN section. I'll quote it for you.  "The user who created the page is probably a new user. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to the newbie. During deletion debates for vanity pages, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the page/author (often presumed to be the same person) and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the page's creator from future contributions. Remember to assume good faith."  In light of my new understanding of Wikipedia I anticipate allowing a third perspective the opportunity to write about this movement and to resubmit it in the near future as the movement becomes more notable for you're liking.  I hope to see y'all back on my second go around so that you may again give me some 'helpful' criticism.  Sarcastically, I submit.  - Author
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I begin to doubt the unbiased and encyclopedic aspects. I'd say this was set up as an attempt to gain more members within the campus. While I will suggest deletion, I would also make a suggestion to the founder (and also the writer, if they are separate people) to try another method of advertising, one that doesn't broadcast the Society to the entire world, since it has little reference outside of Arizona. --129.180.1.124 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  Quale 06:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.