Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League


 * 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. WP:CORP is fairly clear - as a local chapter, it has little but local interest coverage ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Illinois Junior Classical League

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92 Talk 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete in the absence of anyone working to demonstrate notability. I'm glad these were nominated separately, since some have been developed quite well, while others follow a definite pattern that plugs in variables into an article that ends with the words "....state chapter of the National Junior Classical League (NJCL), an organization dedicated to the study of Classics, namely Latin and Greek. Formed in 1936 and sponsored by the American Classical League (ACL), NJCL is the largest classical organization in the world, encompassing over 50,000 junior and senior high school students."  Leave it a red link until someone cares to add to it.  Mandsford 16:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my vote to Keep, given the reason that it has almost no content . 'nuff said. Mandsford 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call that content. A non-outside-sourced unencyclopedic list of schools in the state with participating Latin programs and non-notable student officers of the past three years do not make an article. Reywas92 Talk 18:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In this case, the removal of content was harmless and even beneficial, because the content was exactly the sort of material that an article on an association should not have: a list of local chapters, and of all the officers. I can conceive of expanding the encyclopedia so we do include state chapters of organizations, but that we do not generally include them is a well-settled rule, and changing it would need a thorough general discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of easily accessible sources, I might agree. But that isn't the case here (see my vote below).  Just because a guideline is "generally" agreed upon does not equate to it being a requirement.  Please provide a link for this "well settled rule."  Establishing notability for specific types of organizations is a work in progress.  MisterE2123Five6 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Multiple non-primary non-local reliable sources demonstrating notability can easily be found using the news search button at the top of this AFD discussion. I have included a few (finding these took less than 2 minutes):
 * Example 1 - Chicago Tribune staff writer
 * Example 2 - Chicago Tribune staff writer
 * Example 3 - Chicago Tribune staff writer
 * Additionally, the user who nominated this article for deletion contends that a single article for the National organization's state chapters would be more appropriate than individual articles for each (major part of his/her argument for deleting this page). The National Junior Classical League has 51 state-level chapters in the U.S. and Canada.  Even with limited content devoted to each of these 51 chapters, a single article would likely reach beyond an acceptable article size. WP:SIZE
 * I also wish to highlight the nominating user's previous actions regarding this individual state chapter pages v. a single group state chapter page, namely redirecting each of the ten or so existing state chapter pages to the group state chapter page he/she created, all w/o any discussion. MisterE2123Five6 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: User:MisterE2123Five6 appears to have made few or no contributions outside of this topic; it is hard to tell since he/she has posted under multiple usernames.
 * Even with some pay-per-view articles, there is nothing preventing the list as described at WP:CLUB. Please do not make stuff up hypothesizing about the length of a convenient merged list. Although there are 51 state chapters, only a fraction of them even attend nationals, have conventions, or even have a web site. The length of the list is perfectly acceptable so let's wait until it actually does reach excessive length to split it. BTW, previous actions may have been hasty but should bear absolutely no effect on the public discussion now. Reywas92 Talk 23:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep See my comments here for my rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local human interest stories do not cut it, and this has been confirmed as the consensus yet again at WP:CORP. Also, what encylopedic information is provided in the article? All it says is "the IJCL is the IL chapter of the NJCL" and "Tinley Park Convention Center". Prior to that, the article had lists of names of non-notable people in it. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory, and articles on local/state chapters lack consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said above, individual chapters of a national organization do not get their own article unless there has been extraordinary notability for that one particular chapter. That is not the case here; coverage in the article is non-existent, and coverage cited here appears routine and local. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW this is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2010 (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.