Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Underwater Diving 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Rock Underwater Diving Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inexplicably contested PROD that could well have been speedied. It is the (self-proclaimed) oldest diving club in one city, having existed since only the 1950s: this is not a claim of notability, the one reference is to a directory listing with a self-proclaimed blurb, and this is something that should have been dealt with at PROD instead of bizarrely being thrown to AfD. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Although sources are moderately easy to find, most of them are not reliable. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - looks to fail WP:ORG &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Drover&#39;s Wife: re "only the 1950s", note that 1953 is the beginning of the era of (underwater) civilian diving clubs -- see Timeline of diving technology, Recreational diving, and British Sub-Aqua Club.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  15:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Self proclaimed oldest continually existing diving club in Melbourne with only one reference to that being a directory maintained by the organisation, not notable enough under WP:ORG Anzmibu (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the above reason for deletion had been in the PROD, it is more likely that I wouldn't have contested it. As it was, there was no reason given for deletion, and I as don't delete articles for no reason the fact that I contested it is hardly "inexplicable".Optimist on the run (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2016 (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.