Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannon Club

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. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, removed by SPA page creator. From JamesBWatson's original prod: "No evidence of notability. No substantial coverage in any independent sources." MikeWazowski (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation?

Could be helpful. As in: How does it violate the Notability guideline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

It seems to satisfy all the criteria...

...as does its sister articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_clubs_at_Princeton_University Example of other, less-cited and "notable", article on parallel subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloister_Inn — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungLochinvar (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — YoungLochinvar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The existence of other articles on (in your opinion) even less notability is not a justification for keeping this one. You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single one of the cited sources is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source, and I have not been able to find any substantial independent coverage elsewhere either. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a couple of good articles in the Daily Princetonian.[1] [2] There are also a ton of hits in Google news archives, google books and some in scholar. Most of these appear pretty trivial, but there's enough noise that I've become convinced that there is likely to be sufficient coverage out there. In any case, I think the articles from the Daily Princetonian are enough to make a decent case for meeting the GNG.--Kubigula (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2012 (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.