Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pershing Rifles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Keep as a snowball, original nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pershing Rifles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Lack of reliable non-primary sources, which causes it to fail WP:ORG's guideline of However, the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research. At least one editor of the page has indicated that they believe it is unlikely one will find published works about the Pershing Riflethat may or may not exist (such as ghosts). As noted above, the society has groups established at many universities and colleges across the USA. My guess is that there are many other university associations (such as fraternities and sororities) that have Wiki articles and are also not particularly well documented by printed sources -- should they also be deleted ? Probably not. I also believe this article is a small issue within a greater problem, that being that much information in Wiki was introduced before the use of citations and references were strongly encouraged to indicate from which sourcs which presents a problem with WP:NOR. If the article can be saved, then great! Vidkun (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAWN article got much needed attention and TLC.--Vidkun (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a nationwide military drilling society with branches at many US college campuses. Despite the opinion of someone on the talk page, Google Scholar reports 41 hits, and Google News, more than 1300. The subject is notable and references do exist, making any other issues a question for editors rather than for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am the editor who noted it may be difficult to find published sources on the subject of this article. However, this article is not discussing something that may or may not exist (such as ghosts). As noted above, the society has groups established at many universities and colleges across the USA. My guess is that there are many other university associations (such as fraternities and sororities) that have Wiki articles and are also not particularly well documented by printed sources -- should they also be deleted ? Probably not. I also believe this article is a small issue within a greater problem, that being that much information in Wiki was introduced before the use of citations and references were strongly encouraged to indicate from which sources an article's information was drawn. To my way of thinking, deletion of these articles is not a good solution; rather, they should be tagged as needing citations and references. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not discussing notability, nor whether the group exists or not. I'm discussing verifiability of any information in the article. Right now it comes from primary sources. That needs fixing.--Vidkun (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the article could use work, how is a deletion of the article a "fix" ? --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a fix? Read MSJapan's commentary - there have been many articles that were this poorly sourced, deleted, and later recreated, with appropriate, non-primary, sourcing. I'm not asking to salt the earth on this one, but it's been primary sourced for over a year, and, no matter what DGG says below, primary sources alone are not sufficient.--Vidkun (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. It is not a fix, it is a deletion -- a deletion, by the way, of information that is substantially correct, although I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit. Deleting the article would not do any good on Wiki's behalf and would be a disservice to those readers who seek information on the society. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit It's not a matter of whether I would admit it or not, it's basedon policy regarding verifiability. Deleting this article doesn't prevent the article from being recreated at some future point (even with the same information) with reliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the article doesn't solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. You know perfectly well that adding TLC would fix this article and yet you still are heavily pushing the deletion of it, even after giving us the option the very day before of proving why it shouldn't be. When that requirement was met, you put it up for deletion anyway. Why? What is it about this article that is fueling your engines? You know that deleting it will only make it that much more difficult to create it, bearucratically, the next time around--make it that much more in question the next time around because you have obtained precidence. You know this and yet, you're perfectly willing to do it anyway. Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well you really haven't looked at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, have you. It is not my job to go around and AfD everything. This seems like your pet project, and in order to influence the discussion, you, and others, who keep bringing out the "why don't you AfD article about other college groups" are basically engaging in ad hominem attacks - suggetsing that because I DON'T AfD those article, this one is a personal agenda - are you going to continue with those personal attacks?--Vidkun (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a pet project of mine. That's the problem. If it were, it would be better off today than it is. Unfortunately, this article is near the end of my priorities as far as Wikipedia goes, hence why my limited efforts usually go to other projects. However, I do object to deleting a notable article for seemingly trivial reasons--an article that can be fixed. Deletion of articles is reserved for articles that NEED deleting. You yourself admitted that this article does not need deletion, but rather cleaning up. Thus it would seem that you are putting it through without good reason and abusing the AfD process at the same time. The citation tags would have been enough, yet you pushed for deletion immediately after your first attempt didn't stick.
- And you have yet to answer the question of which sources would pass your approval if in fact those already listed do not. Do college-level newspapers pass your test? How can we add sources if we can't know which you approve of which you do not? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well you really haven't looked at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, have you. It is not my job to go around and AfD everything. This seems like your pet project, and in order to influence the discussion, you, and others, who keep bringing out the "why don't you AfD article about other college groups" are basically engaging in ad hominem attacks - suggetsing that because I DON'T AfD those article, this one is a personal agenda - are you going to continue with those personal attacks?--Vidkun (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the article doesn't solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. You know perfectly well that adding TLC would fix this article and yet you still are heavily pushing the deletion of it, even after giving us the option the very day before of proving why it shouldn't be. When that requirement was met, you put it up for deletion anyway. Why? What is it about this article that is fueling your engines? You know that deleting it will only make it that much more difficult to create it, bearucratically, the next time around--make it that much more in question the next time around because you have obtained precidence. You know this and yet, you're perfectly willing to do it anyway. Like the others have said, if you are going to such great lengths to get this article deleted, we should be seeing you putting every university organization without nationwide media scrutiny up for deletion as well. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit It's not a matter of whether I would admit it or not, it's basedon policy regarding verifiability. Deleting this article doesn't prevent the article from being recreated at some future point (even with the same information) with reliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. It is not a fix, it is a deletion -- a deletion, by the way, of information that is substantially correct, although I can't readily produce a source that you would probably admit. Deleting the article would not do any good on Wiki's behalf and would be a disservice to those readers who seek information on the society. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a fix? Read MSJapan's commentary - there have been many articles that were this poorly sourced, deleted, and later recreated, with appropriate, non-primary, sourcing. I'm not asking to salt the earth on this one, but it's been primary sourced for over a year, and, no matter what DGG says below, primary sources alone are not sufficient.--Vidkun (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the article could use work, how is a deletion of the article a "fix" ? --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not discussing notability, nor whether the group exists or not. I'm discussing verifiability of any information in the article. Right now it comes from primary sources. That needs fixing.--Vidkun (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable, as evidenced by the numerous Google scholar and news hits. References do exist, though the article needs to be cleaned-up to make use of them. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very real and very notable, also substantial coverage per above. --Banime (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Existence is proven, but RS is not met, and thereby, WP:N is not met. The article is simply a rewrite of the primary sources, and could be considered to be a lift in certain respects. The two pages of recent Google News hits are trivial; they merely indicate that the Society participated in an event (and the hits are all about the Clemson chapter). Google News indicates no other articles after the 1950s. Those article, BTW, merely indicate sizes of pledge classes, attendance at drills, and are furthermore limited to activities at PSU. The Scholar hits are throwaways, in that the extent of the coverage is that the subject was a member. I have found that when the WP article is GHit #2 after the group itself, and is also followed by other primary sources about the group itself, there aren't any reliable third-party sources to be had, and it simply is not an appropriate topic for a WP article. This seems to be the case here - for such a common phrase, there wasn't even a relevant book listing on Amazon. If and when sources can be found, the article can be recreated, but to leave it as-is sets a bad precedent for not needing to adhere to policies with regards to article creation, improvement, and retention. MSJapan (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Famous organization, with adequate sourcing to write an article. 635 entries in GoogleBooks--Some in standard works about Pershing eg [1], which is not incidental mention but a description of the origin. Additionally, many fiction showing the name is well enough known to be used for characterization, and many bio and autobio showing similar importance--I believe some people call this trivial mention, and I would agree if there were a only a few, but I think it stops being trivial when there are hundreds. (see for example the many about Colin Powell, and quotes listed from him). Finally, primary sources are perfectly good for routine facts about an organization, if no interpretation is required. DGG (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I fail to see how a lack of volumes written about an organization means that the organization is not notable. If the Historical Society of Nebraska feels a college organization is important enough to the state's history to be compelled to write something about it, surely it holds notability beyond what you yourself see. When you have an organization made up of college chapters, college newspapers are going to be the majority of secondary sources reporting on it, unless a situation like the hazing incident comes up, in which case other newspapers cover that as well. A nationwide university organization is notable by definition; most of the paperwork associated with it is going to come from the headquarters. Using primary sources is not prohibited in Wikipedia--they should just be accompanied by secondary sources as well, which there are. But then, perhaps you don't count college newspapers as real news organizations and thus not real secondary sources? The only reason national newspaper organizations would write about any college-level organization is if there was a scandal involved; without a scandal in the Pershing Rifles does that mean they do not deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia about pertinent information?
You said you had investigated the organization for hazing. Is that reason enough to delete them from Wikipedia? Because you disagree with the organization itself instead of the Wikiarticle about them? I say not. Personal agendas have no place here. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the personal attack - I listed the article for deletion because it fails the verifiability policy, not for notability. Keep obfuscating this discussion, why don't you.--Vidkun (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Lots of sources. In-depth coverage. VG ☎ 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then put the reliable sources in. If you are arguing it has lots of sources, then cite them - this article has been sourced from primary sources alone, for well over a year. It currently fails verifiability, it's not a snowball.--Vidkun (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is now up to seven citations from published works. Suggest this AfD nomination be ended. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as notability has been established... and might still use [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], et al... all found with this simple search, to show historical and continued current notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article has been improved, most of your sources you just listed are self published webpages by individual chpters of PR, which, if you were familiar with guidelines at WP:ORG aren't enough, on their own. Additionally, your Hofstra link (the second one you list) has a line wishing to improve the morale of the ROTC unit when, at the time Pershing was at Univ. Nebraska, ROTC did not yet exist. A corps of cadets existed on various universities, but ROTC did not, until 1916.--Vidkun (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... well... felt that if there was so much in even a cursory search, there would be nore (as shown below) in a more extensive one. A keep is a keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following are independent articles that are specifically about the PR and their chapters (in other words, not mentioned trivially or in passing): [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] As I understand the policy I just read, if notability by secondary sources has been established for an organization (and the larger and more national the organization, the easier it is to establish that notability), sources of the organization can be used in addition to those secondaries that established the notability in the first place. Translation: not everything in this article has to be documented by secondary sources as long as the subject is notable, which it clearly is. Nice for us, huh? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article has been improved, most of your sources you just listed are self published webpages by individual chpters of PR, which, if you were familiar with guidelines at WP:ORG aren't enough, on their own. Additionally, your Hofstra link (the second one you list) has a line wishing to improve the morale of the ROTC unit when, at the time Pershing was at Univ. Nebraska, ROTC did not yet exist. A corps of cadets existed on various universities, but ROTC did not, until 1916.--Vidkun (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep seems to be snowing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nationwide organization of long standing in the U.S. Google News archive search[18] shows 1350 items about the organization. Many have substantial coverage and are from reliable and independent sources sources, such as "The Pershing Rifles," in "The Woodville Republican" - Apr 27, 1918, page 3 (NewspaperArchive.com. subscription), "Pershing Rifles to enter Ohio matches[19]" in Urbana Daily Courier, and "Death of a Fraternity Pledge[20]" in Time magazine, November 22, 1976, among many other sources which demonstrate notability and can be used to improve the article.[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2008 (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.