Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PVLC

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. - Mailer D iablo 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVLC[edit]

Whatever the notability requirements exist for a school club, I don't think the Pine View Latin Club meets them. Starwiz 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of PVLC I don't see the harm in leaving the PVLC page up. Anything added to it is pure fact, and students from the school may find it useful, as many Pine View kids are very fond of Wikipedia and enjoy learning anything, especially if it relates to the school. Rabbitspawn 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Rabbitspawn[reply]
Delete Non-notable, OR, unverifiable. If this stays, we'll have an article for every chess club, A/V crew, debate squad, etc. at every school in the English-speaking world. Fan-1967 16:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete So what if there are pages on school clubs? Wikipedia needs to take the step forward and become an encylopedia on EVERYTHING. Pine View Latin Club makes this bold first step, and even so, as pointed out by Rabbitspawn - students from Pine View may find it useful. In response to it being unverifiable, I believe that to be ridiculous - this is most definitely verifiable. Contact the teacher of the class through the school's homepage, and he can verify. Additionally... I'd like to quote Wikipedia's guide to notability. This article is verifiable and does not contain original research. As there are no specific guidelines presented regarding school clubs, I refer to this paragraph - and by it, PVLC should not be deleted.

It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and (in theory) has no size limits, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.245.245 (talk • contribs)

Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That means Wikipedia will not be "an encylopedia on EVERYTHING." Also, Wikipedia requires Verification from Reliable Sources. If you read that definition on Reliable Sources you will find your teacher is not there. Fan-1967 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fan-1967. Erechtheus 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and per Fan-1967. Molerat 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry for the creator of the article, who had good intentions and took considerable effort with it, but I also don't think that Wikipedia is the right place for it.--Hús ö nd 02:54, 3 September 2006 (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.