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. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William and Mary High School Model United Nations[edit]

William and Mary High School Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod'ed deletion and restored at DRV. Despite this, the article has a marginal claim to notability (supposedly one of the largest Model UNs) but there are no sources to back this up, nor there are any other signs that this organization meets the notability guidelines WP:ORG. Additionally, this article has a very promotional tone and reads like an FAQ for the organization (in violation of WP:NOT#FAQ). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too many schools, notable or otherwise, have model united nations. This only goes to show the notability of the concept of Model UN, but "The College of William and Mary"+"Model United Nations", even if it's the largest one, may not warrant an article. I get exactly 9 unique Ghits, and zero in Google news. Ohconfucius 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Google Search employed is mutually exclusive as removing the acronym "WMHSMUN" limits results to those which use the full, formal title, thus removing several hundred, unique websites from consideration. Westby1400

• Comment This non-mutually exclusive search, which eliminates only Ghits other than wmhsmun.org rather than any hits which use the acronym, gives 14 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 14:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost a speedy. Non-notable, no reliable sources, unencylopedic tone ("What is WMHSMUN All About?"). Terrible article all around. I can't even find anything in it worth merging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, spammish in tone, as well. Corvus cornix 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Potentially notable if can back up comparative size and show that it's demonstrated press coverage, but no strong, sourced case made for note. Unreferenced and spammy. MrZaius^talk 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All right, we'll get some sources added to this as soon as possible. This is a difficult task because there is relatively little official literature on the subject of Model UN in general - and a MUN conference isn't like a corporation or some other organizations in that books are written about them - but we'll do what we can. Sources exist and we'll try to find their electronic versions. I also cleaned out a couple of things that I found that I thought read like advertisements, could you all be more specific as to what content you still find objectionable? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.51 (talk • contribs)
  • I know you're trying to get us to keep this, but your argument states pretty clearly why these Model-UN articles are always deleted when they come to AfD: they have insufficient coverage by reliable sources. Honestly, if magazines and such consider these things too trivial to report, what makes you think an encyclopedia should cover them? The lack of logic just boggles the mind. Since there's no reliable sources to lean on, the articles get filled up with hopelessly trivial things: "The Secretary-General for WMHSMUN XIX was Erin Kuykendall." and "WMHSMUN XX included the special last-minute addition of ghost tours throughout Colonial Williamsburg on the first night of the conference." Who on earth writes something like that and thinks "Now THAT'S something that belongs in an encyclopedia!" Absolutely baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, spammy tone. — Ocatecir^T 19:42, 27 June 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.