Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CA-782nd AFJROTC


 * 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. Most of these articles were utterly lacking in sources. In the few cases where they were provided, it was to the groups own websites etc. As such it appears more sensible to make fresh mentions of notable sections in relevant articles (especially as there are two possible targets- the schools they relate to and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps) rather than merge content that can easily be recreated. If any of these articles did in fact contain content that cannot be readily reproduced (though that did not appear to be the case), I will undelete it on request to merge to the appropriate article. WjBscribe 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

CA-782nd AFJROTC

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These articles relate to individual sections of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, which, in itself meets WP:ORG notability criteria. The individual branches clearly do not as they lack reliable secondary sources establishing their notability. I think therefore their articles should be deleted and/or information merged into the articles of the high school's which they relate to. Some discussion has already taken place at Articles for deletion/FL-802nd AFJROTC Madmedea 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

N.B. - It may help to read the section of the WP:ORG policy that refers to chapters/branches of non-commercial organisations: WP:ORG before commenting as this sets down some very clear guidlines. Madmedea 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Only Northmont and Pearl River seem to make a statement about national ranking. DGG 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article names, merge content. These groups are too minor to ever get the kind of 3rd-party coverage needed to write NPOV articles. -Will Beback · † · 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some Any Nationally ranked units that have references should be allowed but all others should be deleted because there is no good references.--Joebengo 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some or Merge echoing Joebengo and Will Beback. Keep any notable chapters that have verifiable references even if they are not nationally ranked.  For example, chapters that have a verifiable and notable history but are currently run-of-the-mill fall into this category.   Merging notable, verifiable content per Will is also acceptable.  Other than as part of a "list of," does non-notable chapter content need to be in Wikipedia?  I doubt it.  Dfpc 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Flour Bluff was ranked 1st nationally 11 out of the past 12 years also.--Joebengo 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all unless they have unusual notability outside of JROTC. These are effectively similar to Boy Scout troops. I don't see that we should be listing subsections of an organization without good resaon, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per WP:ORG. Notability doesn't have a trickle-down effect, per se. JROTC is clearly notable; that being said, individual chapters (which number in the thousands) appear non-notable outside of the scope of their parent organization. In the case of Flour Bluff (as mentioned above), being ranked 1st in JROTC may warrant a mention in the JROTC article, but is hardly an assertion of external notability. It's not as if we're talking about military units; ultimately, we're talking about high school clubs. To extend what Dhartung says, that's as if saying the largest and most active Boy Scout troop (or FFA chapter, MEChA chapter, pick an example which makes sense) meets WP:ORG, simply because it is the largest and most active subgroup of an organization that meets WP:ORG. Also, finding WP:RS is difficult regardless: just like any other subgroup, JROTC groups will be talked about in school/local papers, the school website, and by the parent JROTC organization, and likely do not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" threshold. -- Kinu t /c  19:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, merge a few notable details. We don't need coverage of the group that won the national championships, just a list of the natl champions on the main JROTC page.  These are non-notable high school clubs. Calliopejen1 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I came here to close this, but I was frankly clueless about how to do so given at least three "merge and delete" votes, including the nominator's. We can't do that due to attribution concerns and the GFDL (our license for use and contribution). If you can clarify whether you want merger or deletion, that might help the closer.--Chaser - T 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.