Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Conservative Clubs Of Ameica

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 11 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes and 2 people who abstained. The article was moved (to correct a typo in the title) and edited during the discussion. One of the keep votes was conditional on a "major rewrite" but was made after the rewrite had been accomplished (which implies that the rewrite may not have been sufficient). Reviewing the history, the rewrite strikes me more as copyedit and formatting that the major overhaul requested by the "delete" voters.

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now. If the article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High School Conservative Clubs Of Ameica, now moved to High School Conservative Clubs Of America

Non-encyclopedic organization, 610 Google hits do not notability make FCYTravis 07:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe the spelling error had something to do with the lack of hits? Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I corrected for the spelling error unconsciously when I typed it into Google. <grin> --FCYTravis 11:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reads like vanity, and every school or university has several dozens of different clubs, some of which are conservative, and most of which are extremely not notable. Delete. Radiant_>|< 11:18, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral The title is wrong so it should be moved if it is kept, when doing a search for "High School Conservative Clubs Of America" on google there seems to be a lot of news articles on it though, but I didn't notice any mainstream papers though. If GNAA can have it's own article then perhaps this group as well? --ShaunMacPherson 12:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that's apples and oranges, since the GNAA is one group with a reasonable amount of fame, and the HSCCOA are a large number of small local groups, none of which are particularly special. Radiant_>|< 13:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've never seen Wikipedia's systemic bias so nakedly demonstrated. GNAA, if it's famous at all, is known only as a bunch of Slashdot trolls. This group made headlines and has been noticed by UCB School or Law and the National School Boards Association, and the founder has spoken at the California Republican Assembly's anniversary convention. There's no comparison. HSCA is one organization an ordinary person might in fact have read about in a newspaper and want to know about. GNAA is not even well known to anybody who sets his Slashdot filter to a reasonable level. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Tony Sidaway that this is most certainly a sign of systemic bias on wikipedia. However, I believe we are best served by eliminating both articles. I see no evidence here that this group has done anything important. Indrian 04:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity of `Tim`, nothing else. Bad bad article. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite more NPOV and less vainly. The way the article is written currently, it borders on needing deletion for vanity, but the organization does at least have momentary notoriety in the sphere of freedom of speech in the public school setting, in the form of a Washington Times article. As such, it is part of a discourse which the Wikipedia should make an effort to protect. --Dachannien 14:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to "make an effort to protect" anything. It is Wikipedia's purpose to be an encyclopedia. RickK 19:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, not-notable, and not even spelled right! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very poorly written, I would support it with heavy revision. Too much personal promotion of a realatively insignificant figure outside of the local community to which he belongs. - LouieS17:03 Jun 10 2005

• Delete: Not a single thing at all, but rather a collection of things not discussed as a topic, but, rather, as if they were coherent. I.e. there is no subject here for a discussion of this type. Instead, there would be a mere whiff of a mention at some conservative-politics-related lemma. However, the clubs in question appear to have next to no effect on the world, so it's very doubtful that even such a mention would be worthwhile. (HS clubs in general don't have much effect, except on themselves.) Geogre 19:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for exactly the reasons listed by Andrew Lenahan. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:44, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Made San Francisco Chronicle and was recorded in the "Faculty in the news" page at UCB School of Law [1]. Also made the Boston Globe and was recorded in the clippings library of the National School Boards Association [2]. With UCB and NSBA recording this activity, I'd feel uncomfortable describing this entry as vanity. It does need cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Lots of things make the newspaper once. It remains to be seen whether this has any long-lasting impact on society - which can only be judged into the future. Right now this organization has done nothing of note except be in the paper. --FCYTravis 10:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This sounds like special pleading to me. We're not making value judgements about the achievements of an organization, we're deciding whether it's reached the level at which it is of interest to more than a few people. We know that UCB School of Law and National School Boards Association are tracking this organisation. We also know that Bueler shared a podium with a Republican Congressman, Tom Tancredo, at the California Republican Assembly's 70th anniversary conference in April, in his role as founder of this organisation. That's more than enough. Defending this article feels rather odd to me as a person whose politics are extreme left wing by US standards and virtually diametrically opposed to everything Bueler stands for, but there you are. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity. Delete, at least until something this organization does something more notable than merely existing. -- Karada 10:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... but watch closely for NPOV problems. --Unfocused 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony's comparison with the GNAA and other arguments. Kappa 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. News coverage makes this notable, and there is enough verifiable information to usefully report on the subject. Quale 18:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep under condition of a major rewrite per Dachannien and Tony Sidaway. StopTheFiling 18:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I gave this article a more-or-less total rewrite on 11th, shortly after Dachannien made his comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.