Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascack Pi-oneers

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 to Pascack Valley Regional High School District. There seems to be a consensus here that a dedicated article is not warranted. Although some editors have argued a merge would be out of place, there's no particularly strong policy argument cited in either direction. That's not neccessarily a problem, but it leads me to view consensus as lying with the majority who say a merge is suitable. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pascack Pi-oneers

Pascack Pi-oneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have searched for substantial

• Merge to Pascack Valley Regional High School District. A basketball, soccer, or baseball team, or a band or choir with as little press coverage as this robotics team (2 articles in Google News Archive) would be merged to the high school. But this robotics team is from two different high schools in a district, so merger to the article about the school district in indicated. The article can be "smerged" or selectively merged to the school district article, thereby removing any excessively promotional language. Edison (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The team website has a page containing archived copies of several news articles written specifically about the team; they seem to be sufficient to satisfy the
  notabilty requirement. Also, I'm not keen on a merge to the school district's article. That would seem out of place, I think. It's probably better to have this stand alone, with "See also" links from the schools' articles. TheFeds 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The article has been updated to reflect the team's accomplishments and has provided several references previously unmentioned. I propose they satisfy the
  notabilty requirement. A merge with the district's article mixes a student activity with the business of the district, and that isn't supported by precedent.Noah976 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment. The additional sources recently added by Noah976 are composed of links to the local school board's website, the US First website, and online forums. There have now also been several questionably notable facts added. For instance being "one of the 39 teams" or "Local newspaper coverage was received" or "hosting several teams and generating enthusiasm in the community" does not sound notable regardless of sourcing. Claims such as "most prestigious award" and "Receiving this award is somewhat rare" and "a relatively young team winning a second Chairmans Award is uncommon" are not supported by reliable sources and sound like non-neutral POV per
  original research. Based upon the stretch of questionable claims, non-neutral point of view, and lack of significant coverage this team just does not seem notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Argument. Citations include five newspaper articles - are these not valid? The links to the newspaper articles are, regrettably, copyrighted when they are archived, so only links to the free preview can be cited. Four articles in a large newspaper (circulation 168000 [1]) plus others (only one other is cited) is notable. Generating community enthusiasm for science nerds is notable (just try doing it!). I'm searching for the stats to cite the claim about rarity and uncommon-ness, since these are what makes the team notable, agree without citations they seem like puffery. Winning these major awards, when so very few the 1809 teams competing^[2] (Pg 12) ever do, is notable. Certainly there are teams more notable, but the majority are far less notable. Follow the link to see the 'several other awards', "pointless" is listing them here when a mouse click shows them to you; they are not original research as defined, instead are documented facts. I do agree on the non-neutral POV, that could use work. Newbie here.Noah976 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge to Pascack Valley Regional High School District, I don't think a High school team, unless something really notable happened should have its independent article. -RobertMel (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge It would take much mor than this to make a particular high school team independently notable, such as a national championship. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead of Merge As stated, merge is not appropriate. If the team isn't notable (which I dispute, it is) then delete the article.Noah976 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You voted both "keep" and "delete" here. Please make up your mind. Airplaneman ^talk 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the school's article, with either a mention in the appropriate section or a subsection of some sort. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 19 March 2010 (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.