Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotary Club of Pensacola Suburban West


 * 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. Sandstein 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rotary Club of Pensacola Suburban West

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn club. It's a branch of the Rotary Club, which have thousands of clubs all over the world. Fails WP:ORG. Biggspowd 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This club needs something better to do with their time. What a long article! YechielMan 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and make articles about the other world rotary clubs. --164.107.223.217 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as failing to provide notability, and do not make articles about the other world rotary clubs. Or Kiwanis.  Or Elks.  Or Lions.  Corvus cornix 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable local club. NawlinWiki 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Here are the reasons for deletion

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject) * Content not suitable for an encyclopedia * Copyright infringement * Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax) * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic * Inappropriate user pages * Inflammatory redirects * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources * All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed * Newly-coined neologisms * Overcategorization * Patent nonsense or gibberish * Redundant templates * Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) * Vandalism that is not correctible None of them apply. A club that has been in service more than 50 years, established scholarship programs, people to people programs to foster international understanding, active in the fight to stop polio. Over 1,700,000 English articles, not a place for this one? Tedkirchharr 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following... Given the highlighted clause, saying "[n]one of them apply" is utterly meaningless, isn't it? And to answer your no-doubt-intended-as-rhetorical question, nope.--Calton | Talk 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Thank you for the reference. Here is what WP:ORG says [edit] Primary criterion See also: Wikipedia:Notability#The primary notability criterion A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
 * Delete. Purely local group, no national or international impact noted. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete see WP:ORG as a minor club, not of a sufficient level to be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy. Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

Secondary sources cited, more to come. Tedkirchharr 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced and non-notable.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability claimed or established. Nuttah68 12:10, 5 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.