Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOCHIP

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 Merge with MasoniCHIP.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOCHIP[edit]

NN and violates WP:NOT. Only one of many programs run in various states in different ways. Author of article is a Program Coordinator in his area, and seeks to use WP as an informational source for his state's program (advertising), and has apparently run into issues posting this before as per the article talk. MSJapan 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. Who are you to say I am using this for advertising. It is a real and important program, and just because I am involved in it doesn't mean I am advertising. I see many people on WP post atricles of things they are familiar with. MSJapan has had an issue with this since the start and has made it a personal decision to do away with it. Jokerst44 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Vidkun and Grye both saw issues with it before I ever weighed in on the situation, so that is an unfair characterization. MSJapan 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like a valid topic for an article to me. Should simply be edited to be objective and accurate. Jefferson Anderson 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only violation is WP:COI and that is not good reason to delete. Improve the article.--Master pedia 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems it could be merged into a larger article but I don't think it hurts to have its own space. There is no doubt that is violates WP:COI. Notability could be established fairly easily I would think. No question that CHIPS programs are notable but is the mere existence of one specific program sufficient for notability? Maybe, maybe not. But in the end, the encyclopedia is not harmed by its inclusion. JBEvans 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I don't know why you would like to keep this, but it's non-notable. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having this information widely available could end up saving a couple of kids' lives a month. Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pure speculation and your own OR ,as there are many other ways. Now if you can find an RS saying so, that would be worth doing. DGG 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge into a larger article on the program nationwide, when such an article is written. WegianWarrior 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: This program already has an official website located at mochip.org, which is hosted by masonichip.org, which hosts six programs on its server (the six referenced by the author): CT. MO, ME, NJ, RI, and MI. Add to that list (from Google) PA, NE, NB, MA, IN, TN, and IL, and there are likely others not online. So MOCHIP is not "one of six", but rather one of at least 13 programs in the United States, which I think reduces its notability even further. What I also noticed (and which can be checked via that search link)is that MO is the lowest-ranked set of hits for the CHIP program out of any state. MSJapan 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create as subsection of article on Masonic CHIP programs in general (as was suggested before, and taken as a personal insult by the original author of the MOCHIP article.--Vidkun 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a less location specific article on Masonic Child ID programs in general... you can add NY to the list of states that have similar programs. I do agree with Matthew Joseph Harrington's statement above, that having such information on Wikipedia could well save a child's life... and so I think an article on Masonic Child ID programs in general would be a true public service... but the Missouri program is not unique or notable in and of itself. We should discuss and provide links to all such programs (even those not run by the Masons). Blueboar 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - A program run in a specific state. Nothing notable about it, the same program is run in many states. I am sure there is an article on child id programs, where a mention may be appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - A MasoniCHiP article should be made that encompasses all the CHiP programs. Although there are slight differences between the state CHiP programs, most are extremely similar, going so far as have exactly the same website template between GLs, such as [1] and [2]. They are partically the same, but with different colors. Chtirrell 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely local organizations are usually not considered notable unless they get a lot of press coverage or have some discernible national impact. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.

EdJohnston 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with strong attention to WP:COI in subsequent edits. The MasoniCHIP scheme itself looks highly notable, and I've created a stub. Tearlach 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a larger Masonic chip article. Putting aside COI issues, this is clearly a notable program according to our notability guideline. A quick Google search turns up news reports on this program carried by multiple local media outlets in Missouri. See Talk:MOCHIP#Some references and Talk:MOCHIP#MOCHIP media examples. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, the subject looks notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 01:13, 17 April 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.