Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K2GXT

K2GXT

K2GXT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed PROD for a student-run amateur radio club at Rochester Institute of Technology. This club fails WP:ORG for lack of 3rd-party WP:RS coverage. The article is written by the club historian, hence a WP:COI problem. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Fails WP:ORG.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to RIT for reasons specified by Gene93k. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable student club with no coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nowhere near notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Only external sources are a note that they're comms for a diabetes run and a press release. That doesn't make them notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how this is notable at all, zap it. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article just needs to be cleaned up and notability needs to be established. Give it a bit of time. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep working on adding 3rd party sources to the wiki. Many are from QST, other magazines, and newspapers. KB1LQC (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Please feel free to correct mistakes in the wikitext. I will honestly say that I do not feel comfortable with the syntax, but we all have to start somewhere. The biggest roadblock here is time. I am conversing with the ARRL on their QST Magazine articles, and other people/organizations/publishers about their information related to K2GXT. I honestly do agree that it is a bit concerning when one person has much of the info, I wish it would differ. However that is the case, I plan on finding a way to cite much of the information and host as much as possible when I find the means to do so. Many of the documents I have might be put into the RIT Archives in September. This would provide a very secure and long-term solution to publishing the documents containing the information. I encourage anyone who wants to help save this wiki to edit it. Related to K2GXT or not, please! K2GXT is one of those unique clubs with a diverse history. RIT has a huge engineering community, as well as a huge Photography, publishing, and image related community too. This diversity reflects in the clubs history and former activities in the Rochester area and nationwide/worldwide as I have been trying to show. There are events that K2GXT has been involved with, papers published in, etc that I haven't had the chance to take information for the wiki from. Any questions or comments please let me know. As you can see, I want to resolve this matter in a mature way by fixing the problem. I have no intentions of starting an "edit war" or whatever it is referenced to. Just simply getting the information on the wiki will be incredibly important to proving its notability. KB1LQC (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to a new sub-section in Rochester Institute of Technology#Campus life. The sources are insufficient to sustain independent existence under WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Several independent sources have been added to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Mostly from stuff in RIT. ARRL's webzine is questionable, IMO - could be wrong. The article in the Democrat only mentions them in passing. Unless ARRL can be considered WP:RS, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Information about About ARRL KB1LQC (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• comment There is mention in the RIT Amateur Radio Club 1983-1984 Annual Report that states "Members used club equiptment to keep in touch with the Greneda crisis as Amateur Radio provided the only communication link from the invaded island to the rest of the world." a quick google search will reveal that amateur radio communication were indeed used in Grenada by Mark Baratella. Can someone can help find a verifiable source linking K2GXT to KA2ORK to help communicate with the students in Grenada? There may be more info locked away in the club room but I will not be able to go there until the end of August. KB1LQC (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article still doesn't establish notability. It's got to describe why, this organization is known outside it's area. Has it made some contribution to the field of amateur radio? Awards always help (there is one but it's relavance is not clear at all). Bottom line is, what makes this organization known outside of it's immediate area. If that cant be established, with sufficent verifiable 3rd party references, then it needs to go. This isn't RochesterInstituteofTechnology-pedia.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Article already has multiple sources outside RIT or the radio club; that's WP's definition of notability. The original nomination was for lack of third-party sources, which have since been added. If the above comment about it being an important communications link during the Grenada crisis checks out, that also makes it notable. Finally, because the club operates a station with internet-linked repeaters and packet digipeaters, it is part of the communications infrastructure of the Rochester area. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are 14 references, 7 are primary sources (from university publications, websites, or a press releases), 1 is from the FCC (which doesn't do much to establish notability), 3 don't mention the subject of the article at all, and 1 is from a self published hobbiest website (which doesn't establish notability). The link to the American Diabetes page does establish that the group provided support but I don't know how much that does to establish notability here. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article is the one reasonably good verifiable 3rd party reference though it doesn't mention the subject the article either. The the only reference for the Grenada claim is above and that's to a self published source which doesn't help either. If this organization is notable, certainly there are better references than these.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The 3rd party references are 3rd party references, that is fulfilling what the complaint was, a lack thereof. Ok we are working to correct that and have made progress, do we need more, certainly, but it shows that something is forming. The Grenada Incident that I have mentioned could be checked out. As I clearly stated, I asked if anyone can help look for references to the claim. As for the self-published hobbiest website, amateur radio is a hobby and there certainly will be websites by other groups or organizations. Why would it not be a legit source? Technically, a professors personal website would have lack of validity in that case... even if considerable research was done, I would suggest making statements about references such as this more clear in the future. If references do not have a title, why not help and fill in the missing information? As I clearly stated on the talk page, I am new to this and any help is welcome. KB1LQC (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are three more references under the "references" header instead of "footnotes", which don't have inline cites. They are two issues of QST magazine and a newspaper article. All three are secondary sources. ( To the above poster: ) yes, primary sources and self-published sources by experts are valid, but this debate is about notability, and secondary sources establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I updated some info an referenced more that I just found on when the club formed. I also added our Valentine Day service as well as our Traffic handling during the Gulf War. KB1LQC (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment aren't there better references than that PDF file describing the service? Certainly some newspaper somewhere wrote about this clubs involvement in this service.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes there has to be, traffic handling was one of the most popular activities the club did, there are reports of over 1,500 messages being sent during one of the years valentines day events to people around the nation and world...The Gulf War service seems pretty important and I am sure something will turn up. I understand that the statements must be backed up by citing verifiable sources too so I am actively looking for them. There is still a lot of documents in Rochester, NY in the club room "history" cabinet that I did not take home (to Massachusetts, 400 miles away). I am pretty anxious to see what is there that has been saved now that I know what needs to be looked for. A problem with the online news archives is that many require a subscription to see the articles so I am hoping that there are some saved in that cabinet. KB1LQC (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)