Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Sailing 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Birmingham Sailing Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Current sourcing consists solely of listing and primary sourcing. Searches turned up 4 trivial mentions.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region.--Banderas (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately I cannot find any suitable sources demonstrating that this club meets WP:ORGCRITE as having "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" nor meeting WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organisation with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements" AusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

*delay deleting and instead expand/source article. Banderas made the important point of: "I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region." Onthe other hand, AusLondonder mad ea good point as well which was: " Unfortunately I cannot find any suitable sources demonstrating that this club meets WP:ORGCRITE as having "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" nor meeting WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organisation with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements"" I think we should delay deleting the article and expand/source the article. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some sources have apparently been added since the most recent "delete" vote. Any changes?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google and Google News searches turn up no independent in-depth coverage.  Passing mentions, quotes from members, directory entries, and the club's own website, but nothing else. Fairly clear WP:GNG fail.  Ammodramus (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2017 (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.