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.
Fl-802, an abortive attempt by the creator of the FL-802nd AFJROTC article about the same topic should be added. If the latter article is deleted, the former should be also. If kept, Fl-802 should be a redirect. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a Junior ROTC unit - that's a big difference. Would it have been too much to give the author a tiny bit of time to add some references and establish notability before jumping straight into an AfD? --ElKevbo00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a unit, not a program; I don't see any good reason to delete it. Hobby-horse time - this was nominated eleven minutes after creation, with the creator obviously still working on it (they'd already done five expansions prior to the AfD and are still working on it) — iridescenti(talk to me!)00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough to see how a JROTC unit can meet the notability guidelines, unless there's something that distinguishes it from other such units. Nevertheless, this was created by a new user and it may have been better to contact the user on his or her talk page and explained about notability, merger and such rather than just nominating it for deletion. If notability cannot be established, a merger of some of the content into West Orange High School, Winter Garden may be preferable to deleting. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, individual [J]ROTC units are, unless otherwise sourceable, non-notable outside of the scope of the parent organization and/or the school at which they are based. I believe there's precedent here, so if anyone can find some of the other AfDs for these, that would help. --Kinut/c02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've amended my rationale above by adding "unless otherwise sourceable" to it; perhaps categorizing "all" [J]ROTC units as non-notable is too much of a generalization and may be construed as too much of a WP:WAX-style argument. However, while there may be a couple that might meet notability standards, this topic and its article do not, so my ultimate recommendation remains unchanged. --Kinut/c18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete on the general grounds of non-notability--the only particular thing is that the were one of the 6 finalists among JROTCs in the state, and none of it is sourced. But it should run the full time. I agree with Iridescenti that it should not really have been nom. this early. We have no rule that articles must be written off-line. DGG03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. I would have trouble seeing an individual ROTC program as notable enough for an article, let alone this, where we're verging on an article for a Boy Scout troop (a close analog to the program). --Dhartung | Talk05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's entirely unfair to leap on such an article so soon after its creation as it's clearly not a frivolous entry. If it hasn't established notability in a few days then fine, consider it for AdF, but let someone write the article first. Writing and sourcing articles is hard work, whereas nominating stuff for deletion is easy. It's new articles which make wikipedia grow though. Nick mallory06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD runs for five days. That is more than enough time to demonstrate notability if those recommending to keep make the effort.... though for a JROTC unit, to reiterate my comments above, that might be difficult. --Kinut/c06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that individual groups are not, in themselves, notable (as per previous discussions about individual scout troops). Emeraude12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Reluctant Delete/Merge: Like other editors, I'm deeply reluctant to give any credence whatsoever to an AfD filed eleven minutes after the article's creation, something I consider to be abusive and knee-jerk in any circumstance beyond CSD candidates. Nonetheless the Delete proponents are right; there's almost no circumstance conceivable where a high school club (and that's all junior high school ROTCs are, despite the bureaucratispeak) has notability distinct from the high school itself. While I'm itching to say Keep, it'd verge on WP:POINT to do so. RGTraynor 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't trying to be "abusive"; I was going to tag it for Speedy, but I didn't think it met the CSD so I brought it to AfD. mcr616Speak!19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just believe -- and demonstrably am not alone -- bringing an AfD mere minutes after an article's creation is objectionable on that very basis; it doesn't give an creator a chance to complete and source the article before a fist to the face which deters many from continuing, and the majority of such quick-draw AfDs happen without noms taking time to gauge a subject's notability themselves. IMHO, the only grounds for not waiting a day or two at least are those which would warrant a Speedy. RGTraynor 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my experience, editors start by stating what they think is the most notable or exceptional fact about whatever the subject of the article is. If it isnt up in the first five edits, it usually only meets WP:N on some technicality. Hornplease20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's more like a homepage for the group than an encyclopedia article. We could have an article on an ROTC unit, but this isn't looking like one. If some sources and content are added, then I might change my vote. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm disturbed by the blanket statements made by some in this discussion asserting that a particular group can never be notable outside of its parent organization. That is terribly shortsighted. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of with unjustifiable crystal ball judgments. --ElKevbo15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you can get the reliable, nontrivial, independent sources to write about a topic, go ahead and do so. That's very unlikely to happen for a high school ROTC program, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On that note, does anyone want to take a look at JROTC#Selected JROTC units? While blanket generalizations are bad, I'm willing to guess that few if any of these articles are sourced to show notability per WP:ORG (after all, at the end of the day, they are high school programs), and should be considered for inclusion or lack thereof (or merge to their respective high school articles) on their own merits. --Kinut/c06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, what I see are implicit references to the proposed guideline WP:ORG and statements that individual clubs or units are not automatically notable. I doubt those same editors meant never, but the circumstances would need to be extraordinary. Say, the JROTC unit was on a training bivouac and rescued Kelly Clarkson from a bear attack. But just existing isn't notability, even getting awards within the organization ("JROTC unit of the year") isn't really notability. Context matters. --Dhartung | Talk06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's unlikely. It's the explicit, outright, and blanket assertion that it can never happen to which I object. --ElKevbo10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hadn't realised until I went to hunt for sources that this is a training programme rather than an actual military unit — the article doesn't actually mention that anywhere... — iridescenti(talk to me!)22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's correct; I'm not sure what the Royal equivalent of the JROTC would be... my guess would be the Air Training Corps or something along those lines. Not an active military unit, but a voluntary cadet training group for secondary students (one step below and parallel to the university-level ROTC). --Kinut/c06:51, 2 May 2007 (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.