Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs


 * 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.  Keep arguments failed to refute delete arguments by provide sources to establish the association's notability. lifebaka++ 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Association of Nene River Clubs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: – news, books, scholar  Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Burningjoker (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Renata creates some very nice articles. Unfortunately, some of them happen to be on non-notable topics. This umbrella organization is one of them, even though some of its members might be notable. Renata also has a different notion of notability than the Wikipedia consensus view. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. If this deliberate targetting of my "very nice articles" continues, I won't be writing any more of them. Can't you guys give me a break and pick on someone your own size??? Renata (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have "picked on" only those articles that have no reliable sources whatsoever. I am the same size as you.  They aren't really your articles, per WP:OWN.  You have created 117 articles since June 12, 2008, and about 95% of them are fine.  But there are millions of charities in the UK, and not all of them are notable.  Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "there are millions of charities in the UK, and not all of them are notable." Is that a policy somewhere? There aren't millions of UK charities and every one has already proven its "notability" (in their local sense) to the charity commissioners. if anything, there's an argument that genuine UK charities are de facto notable, just for having achieved official recognition as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to the Association's website it has a Captain, who is on one page called Ray Brackpool and on another John Brown- so the ANRCs site doesn't provide reliable information on its own organisation. The text of the article is derived entirely from this website. Ning-ning (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Navigation section of River Nene, placing some of the external links as footnotes. Contrary to Phlegm Rooster's assertion the artilce is not quite unreferenced, also his estimate of the number of charities is probably too high, and certainly there are many small ones that do not warrant having an article.  I have no idea whether the Association is truly notable, but this is useful information which it would be a pity ot lose.  The presetn article would almost certainly not merit being expanded.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Association is an umbrella organisation. There is room for expansion on this article, especially on the history. The Association is notable because it is one of the instigators and main players in the Cambridgeshire Boatwatch Scheme. If the Association article gets deleted, the members of the Association will probably (time permitting) get articles of their own, with reference to the Association. Renata (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The ANRC will have a meeting at Titchmarsh Mill at 8 p.m. on Friday 7th September. It may be that the ANRC website (which User:Renata used as the source of the article) will be updated thereafter, with more information. Ning-ning (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Google isn't the sole arbiter of whether something exists or is notable. It's a notable river, with notable organisations on it that have chosen to arrange themselves into an umbrella group. That's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, Google is not the sole arbiter. But so far no sources have been provided that Google couldn't find. Going by the sources on the article and the ones returned above, there is nothing notable about the Association. As for the connections with other associations, lateral or vertical, no entity operates in a vacuum. There are many examples of notable companies whose holding companies are not notable, and in their cases the connection is not voluntary. None of the clubs making up the association currently have an article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only because I haven't had time to write these articles yet, along with many others on the List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom. It's a big project... Renata (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just read your user page. Are you proud of that? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly copyvio. It's a thankless task. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many of them were worthless cruft that didn't deserve inclusion. However that's no reason to collect a gallery of shrunken heads. That merely encourages those who "keep score" for how many articles they can cause to be deleted, and it makes you yourself appear to be one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In each case an admin actually did the deleting. Perhaps you are right, however, about the keeping score (rather than keeping track). Maybe I'll hide them on a subpage, if I can figure out how to make one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have now brought this matter to the attention of WikiProject UK Waterways (of which I'm a member) so that the other members can take part in the discussion.Renata (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK, that's not canvassing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.