Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K2GXT

Add links
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 delete for failure to meet WP:ORG. Danlev, the time to establish notability would have been now.  Sandstein  06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K2GXT

[edit]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Comment - The problem I'm seeing is that they don't seem to match up to the constraints to WP:N - I'm really not seeing much here, and we really need it to meet those constraints. In the case of a ham radio club, I'll be honest, it strikes me as hard to do. Traffic handling - or rather, the nature of it - certainly works in the ham community. Frankly, as a ham myself, I think it's pretty cool what they've done. Unfortunately, you're also dealing with non hams - who run the gamut on those who think it's cool, all the way down to those who wonder if ham radio is kosher. Somewhere in the middle of that range are those who might find it interesting. All that said, though, for the purpose, I really don't see anything to make it to WP:N. Is there anything we can find outside of the community that describes in more detail? If yes, then I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I hope you aren't planning a road trip to gather up those documents just for this AFD. While I'm sure those are wonderful historical documents for the club, they aren't really appropriate as references for this Wikipedia article as they are primary sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Nope, not planning a roadtrip, but I do go back to Rochester at the end of August/beginning of September for school. The documents I am talking about would be saved newspapers, QST, different things like that. KB1LQC (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought QST put back issues online to a small extent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Only a small, select few of the very very very popular articles, usually tech/building/project oriented ones. When I talked to QST about looking through all their archives of the magazine, they even told me it would take a while because the person would have to go manually through an actual magazine looking through each page for any info on K2GXT within them... makes you wish it was all on a computer and was as easy as a little search... KB1LQC (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to satisfy nn. You said it Dad (talk) 05:04, 21 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.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Famous Hams KA2ORK Details
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K2GXT&oldid=1137962687"