Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitt Club

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 keep. — Ocatecir^T 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

So it's an exclusive club. Does that make it notable enough to pass WP:ORG? I can't find anything I'm sure is specifically about this club, it seems to be a rather common name. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this different than articles on Eating Clubs at Princeton or secret societies at Yale? Gabefarkas 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, feel free to nominate them, or point me to them, if you don't care to do it yourself. This AFD isn't about them though, this is about the Pitt Club. If you look at WP:WAX you'll see the explanation of why it's not that convincing to refer to these other articles. Which you didn't even specificy, so how do we know? I mean, I know of Skull and Bones but with [1] a CBS news report, I'll accept that they're notable (and that's not even getting into the numerous other available sources). If you can produce the equivalent for this club, I'd be willing to consider otherwise. But without that, there's no real relationship between the two. Therefore, I suggest you look at this article, and offer an argument as to why it in particular should be kept. Or refute the reason I gave in my nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep But there has to be references; I can't find an extended discussion, but there are numerous mentions in google books for individuals who were members--I added one for a particularly notable member, & from a less notable non-member. (and for comparison, the select clubs at Harvard and Yale are all discussed in non-University sources; the Princeton ones are a mixed lot, but for many their individual history is notable & has sources.)

Unfortunately they are trivial mentions. They don't make for a convincing case in their own right. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With cleanup and expansion will meet notability criteria. I notice this editor has put up a raft of AfD which seem to relate exclusively to Oxford and Cambridge university societies. Some may be justified; other are certainly not - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club. WP:WAX is an essay, not a policy btw. Johnbod 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How will it meet notability criteria? What sources exist? And if you're wondering why I've nominated a bunch of these societies it's because I came across the categories, wondered if the articles were actually notable or not, and decided that there was a problem with some of them. If you can make a fair case for any of them to be kept, go ahead and do so, but when an article has no significant third-party sources, it's a problem. Do you think my actions are unreasonable, and if so, why? Do you believe I have some grudge against Oxford or Cambridge? BTW, while ATA may be an essay, that doesn't make it wrong, if anything, claiming it's just an essay misses the point, because instead of addressing the concern, you're trying to attack something else. I'm afraid that's not convincing. You'd do better to offer sources on this club instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above. Interesting article of notable club. No reason to delete. Obviously needs expanded, but it would be a shame to lose it.--Counter-revolutionary 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, why and what is it notable for? This is a notable Cambridge society. This article lack multiple independent non trivial sources and therefore fails WP:V, it secondly does not outline why the club is notable and therefore fails WP:N and WP:ORG.--Vintagekits 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.