Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Engineering Design Team

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Engineering Design Team

Procedural nomination. Article was speedy deleted per CSD A7 (no assertion of importance). This was overturned per this DRV discussion. It was determined that the awards cited constitute an assertion of importance. Some concerns remain, however, about the suitability of the sources provided (a number are from college newspapers) and whether the group meets notability criteria. Possible merge targets may or may not be available. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete university clubs may have a few write-ups in their student newpaper. The fact that these basketball-playing robots don't have any other sources suggests non-notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, The News-Gazette is not a college newspaper. Sure it's no Chicago Tribune, but it is the newspaper of the Champaign-Urbana area, not UIUC. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the full text in ProQuest, the News Gazette article is mainly about the 2008 robotics competition in general, which was held at UIUC. I don't think it has "Significant coverage" of the team, although it does mention the team's robots and the results along with minor details about the UIUC and UIC team's rivalry. I'd say the article provides good coverage on the event, but not specifically the teams. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think they are in fact a very well known team in these competitions. If the sources show the awards, that they are local or even cllege nwspapers should make no difference. DGG (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (of course since I'm one of the authors). The question is what level of notability is required to have an article on wikipedia? Why is this so difficult? Of course we're not a household name, but when it comes to the events we participate in, I think people know us. And I'm not talking about 3 or 4 family members that just know us by default. We involve ourselves with more than what the newspaper references we have state, including organizing engineering events for high schools. But, we don't have a newspaper article, so we're not notable enough for Wikipedia. Lots of (probably more) notable people don't have newspaper articles simply because the newspapers either do or don't want to hear your story. Just like TV, they care about "ratings" as well and don't want to bore the average reader with some robotics team. I understand you can't have any and every one who wants to put their name on Wikipedia do so, but when did Wikipedia become a purist society of only extremely notable subjects? As a group that is 8 years old, only a couple months ago did we decide to start an article, mainly because there have been lots of people who wanted to know more about us, and for those that don't know us, Wikipedia provides an outlet for discovery. I, myself consider Wikipedia a site where I can go and look up a single subject and the next thing you know, I've got 20 tabs open because there's so much to discover, no matter what the topic may be. If the admins feel we're not notable enough for this site, we'll just have to live with it, but the word "notability" has so many meanings depending on who you are and where you are. PS: Thank you for allowing us to discuss this instead of noticing that our page had mysteriously vanished. Engineer4life (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable as Warpcon. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warpcon is a convention, this is one team. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see notability or "Significant coverage" for this club/team of 20 or so college students established by the cited sources. The Competitions seem noteworthy, but I don't see anything about the club that meets WP:ORG. The one newspaper article is about the competition and mainly says they won it. That cited material saying who won could be easily covered in the articles for Jerry Sanders Creative Design Competition, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Engineering or whatever department in the college that this relates to. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What significant coverage is, is a question of interpetation, but I believe it is covered enough. Enough easily for WP:V. The rewards, and the sources make me believe that there is sufficient notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is too little coverage of the team by independent reliable sources. A few articles in local newspapers is certainly not enough to pass WP:ORG. The awards at the robot competitions are not sufficiently significant either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is procedural and talks of merger. Merger is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The nom is procedural but it is a bona fide deletion nom where merge is mentioned only briefly and non-specifically. The nom clearly outlines the possible deletion rationale. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 30 July 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.