Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/5

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

5 (unremarkable clubs)

 * "Any article that claims to be about any local club (but not a chapter of a larger organization) and does not assert having influence outside the local community, nor having had media coverage" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.


 * With some regularity, people write articles about their high school debating club, or their home town cooking circle. Such articles tend to be not verifiable unless you're part of the local community.
 * Any local sports team that is part of a competition will have had media coverage.
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL July 4, 2005 15:50 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think this is any narrower than the proposal about websites and "local" is a flexible enough word that articles may 'accidentally' get around it and invoke the full VfD procedure; this is a useful check-and-balance. -Splash 5 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, as I believe it will be used sparingly and only for obvious cases. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 02:04 (UTC)
 * 4) This speaks strongly to notability, which is a major criterion for me in determining how to vote on an article. Denni ☯ 2005 July 5 02:09 (UTC)
 * 5) Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - JoJan 5 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. If it's local *and* never was covered by the media for some reason or another, then it simply isn't noteworthy. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  This gets rid of things like The society of me is a super-secret society, which does super-secret things and shuns publicity, which are regularly seen. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
 * 9) &mdash; Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. The admins do have common sense and should be able to differentiate between what is possibly legit and what is not. Again, would help reduce VfD load substantially. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)
 * 12) --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
 * 13) * Porturology's 250th contribution was at (or after) 12:28, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
 * 15) Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
 * 16) Support.  ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:21 (UTC)
 * 17)  <> Who ? ¿ ?  7 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
 * 18) Support  &mdash;thames 7 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * 19) SupportGwk 9 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * 20) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, but I don't understand the but not a chapter of a larger organization part. Surely, Boy Scouts is a notable topic, but Boy Scout Troop 350 is not (unless they specifically did something notable beyond the usual going camping and earning merit badges), and being a chapter of the larger part doesn't help make it so.  RoySmith 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Schools are bad enough, we can't have articles on every club at every school. Gamaliel 17:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) -- nyenyec ☎ 00:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) I trust admin common sense here. Shanes 05:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Mgm|(talk) 11:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Most clubs are chapters of larger organizations that have their own articles. Notable community clubs should be on wiki if they have some form of media attention. I defer to the admins to make common sense judgements on local clubs and their type of inclusion in wiki. Inigmatus 15:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) * Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. IanManka 05:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:55, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) suppport.  Speedy deletion is for articles that can never have notabiliy, and after-hours clubs in the local infant's school fall clearly into this category. Robinh 14:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Newbies never know they are supposed to "assert notability", even for notable subjects. Clubs which have a notable impact on a community can be merged with that community's article. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * 2) Limited value. Very few clubs appear on VfD every day. Pburka 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
 * 3) This is too narrow. some other kind of importance or notability might be asserted, and that should save the article. DES 4 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
 * 4) *For example a notable person might be a member; or the club might deal with inherently notable content, such as a local skeptics group. There might be a notable speaker. etc etc. DES 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
 * 5) I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened.  -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
 * 6) *This was put in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive. There was not much response, however.DES 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
 * 7) ** Why wasn't the main proposal page updated prior to this vote opening? Sounds like Radiant just picked wordings/criteria he liked when opening this vote. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
 * 8) ***What I did was pick the wordings/criteria that appeared to have consensual support from the discussions. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
 * 9) **** No doubt, all these discussions were on disparate pages, and never brought forward on this proposal page prior to your opening of the vote. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
 * 10) *****They were all plainly linked from the main discussion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 10:09 (UTC)
 * 11) Too narrow. VfD's still got to have some purpose... :) humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
 * 12) Too narrow, and I think they deserve a chance to prove their notability before being deleted. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
 * 13) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
 * 14) Again, I oppose the "media coverage" clause. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
 * 15) "Such articles tend to be not verifiable" - so we'd delete such an article even if it was verifiable? We can verify by means other than media coverage. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
 * 16) Per Humblefool Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
 * 17) No. I don't see why chapters of larger orgs are worthy unless the chapter itself can be shown to be notable. Existing rules seem adequate. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. In practise such things often get merged with another article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  5 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:27 (UTC)
 * 20) "Does not assert" is a very poor criterion. If something important isn't asserted, assert it, don't just delete the article.  Discussion of notability and the like should take place, don't leave it to one person. See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
 * 21) *I note that I object to unilateral deletions on this basis. No objection to this proposal if deletion was to be carried out solely using the mechanism described in P1-A. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
 * 22) These should go to VfD. — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
 * 23) Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:17 (UTC). Clubs that are influencial in the local community but have not received media coverage in some cases deserve articles.
 * 24) VFD criterion, not CSD - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose.  Arbitrary, subjective, pointless. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:51 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. The very example given here, a high school debating club, might be more useful to merge into an article on the high school. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 07:28 (UTC)
 * 27) STRONG Oppose. We don't have such an article yet, but why shouldn't we have an article on the Western Lake Erie Historical Society, for example?  Clubs and social organizations frequently have an importance that is not at all obvious to the general public, especially the younger public who are most likely to be editors and admins here.   Un focused 6 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose because too subjective and restrictive. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. It takes a VfD to determine the notability of such a group. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * 32) Simply too inclusive. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. Proposal tries to second-guess what a newbie might write to claim notability but not, IMO, successfully. David | Talk 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Unnecessary. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
 * 35) Not worth a special case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose Needs a VFD for this specific case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose.  Case by case basis.  Kiddie clubs of no significance (whether in a local school or a group on Slashdot, Newgrounds, and the like) should definitely go.  But do we want to arbitrarily start deleting local hiking clubs and model railroad clubs?  Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
 * 38) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:15 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. I don't spend enough time on VfD to follow club articles that are listed there, but when they come up on WP:PNT (ie, clubs in non-English speaking countries) they tend to cause some discussion as to notability: hence I think this is too subjective a criterion for CSD. Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
 * 40) 24 at 9 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
 * 41) * 24ip's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:20, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. This needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis at VfD. TheCoffee 21:17, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. Clubs don't appear frequently enough on VfD that we need this potentially problematic amendment. --Canderson7 18:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. "Notability" should never be a criterion for speedy deletion. Grace Note 02:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose, too subjective K1Bond007 04:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Dsmdgold 14:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) 'Oppose what's wrong with clubs? Dan100 (Talk) 08:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) No. Too vague. JuntungWu 14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. There are some mergeworthy pieces that will be caught by this one, I think. Would probably support more specific and narrow criteria. / Alarm 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. This is too subjective to leave to a single administrator.  Put them on vfd, not speedy. -- DS1953 18:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Not too many of those, VfD won't break under these. Feydey 23:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose. What's being a chapter of a larger org to do with it? David Remahl 03:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. I'm sick of the assertion idea. Superm401 | Talk 04:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose So an article about a local organization that is not affiliated with a national org would be deleted, such as the former "Statehood Party" in DC as it was only a local party and didnt receive national coverage? One person making a decision like that could lead to abuses. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose. Not strong enough. Out here in the boonies, the local TV station reports on what seems like every bakesale. Media coverage is a poor criteria. Casito⇝Talk 02:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose. Media coverage is no use as a criterion for local scientific or archaeological societies. What an awful proposal. adamsan 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)