Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Centre Curling 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. The general consensus is that the article lacks the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Centre Curling Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article does not meet encyclopedic guidelines Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not because it's unencyclopedic -- it's actually written very well-- but because the club itself is not notable enough for its own separate article.  I'd compare it to a local softball league.  Mandsford 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP First of all, I used the template on it when I created it YESTERDAY. Then it gets nominated for deletion less than 24 hours later? (23 hours 54 minutes to be exact) What happened to the whole 'in good faith' thing that Wikipedia talks about?  Thanks to user:Mandsford for saying "written very well" but I must correct you when you "compare it to a local softball league."  How many softball leagues are there in the USA? How many in North Carolina? How many in Charlotte?  I don’t know the answers to those questions but I bet they are a heck of a lot more than about 170, 2, and 1 which are the answers (in order) to the questions how many curling clubs are there in the USA? How many in North Carolina? How many in Charlotte?  You see, curling clubs operate differently than you may be aware. Typically, in states where curling is not a decades-old tradition like it is in Minnesota and Wisconsin, there is only one club per major metropolitan area because there is only sufficient interest to support one club. That is why there is only one club in Columbus, one in the entire state of Tennessee, one in Dallas, etc. etc. That makes each of those clubs notable because they are by their nature unique. Please take a look at List of curling clubs in the United States to see just how few and far-between curling clubs are in the USA and then think about whether or not they are all 'not notable.'
 * I would also point-out "A look inside: How Curling Came to Charlotte" in the May, 2010 issue of the |US Curling News (page 3) which is cited in Charlotte Centre Curling Club article. That piece takes-up about 80% of page three of the 20-page publication. The US Curling News is the newsletter published by the United States Curling Association which is the chartered by Congress national governing body for the sport of Curling. Let me say that another way: The Chartered by Congress, national governing body of an Olympic sport dedicated almost an entire page of its newsletter to the topic of this discussion, the Charlotte Centre Curling Club. That, I would argue, goes a long way towards notability. Not to mention the two news pieces cited in the article including coverage by the local NBC affiliate:  and there are more pieces on the Charlotte club on the local NBC affiliate like this one:.
 * I just found another source! Check it out . Towards the bottom of the article you’ll see "Pre-game curling demonstration, Mar 14, Charlotte Bobcats Arena, 333 E. Trade St. Demonstration to take place before the Charlotte Checkers 2 p.m. game" So the Charlotte Checkers, a professional hockey team had the Charlotte Centre Curling Club come to the NBA arena they (the hockey team) play in to give a demonstration. I would say that is more notability. When was the last time a "local softball league" was asked to give a demonstration at a Major League Baseball game?
 * I know there some people who might say "Oh curling is not a sport" and try to use that as a basis for deletion for this article. In response to that, I would point-out that NBC and its subsidiary channels (USA and CNBC) showed over 100 hours of curling during the Vancouver Olympics . If that's not a sport, what is?
 * Finally, I would ask you to look at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia and decide which side of that coin you want to be on. I thank you for your kind consideration and "voting" to KEEP this article.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

is unreasonable and should be removed. "Club" appears in the name of 179 of the 190 local curling organizations listed on List of curling clubs in the United States. All local curling organizations are called "clubs" by the United States Curling Association. Just like country clubs are called "clubs" even though they are corporations. Prehaps the name of this page should be changed to "The Charlotte Centre Curling Club, Inc." since that is the full name of the entity and YES I can produce a copy of the Articles of Incorporation as I am one of the incorporators but I should not have to since the incorporation record can be found here [1] which I already referenced in the article. If this page should be deleted simply because it has the word 'club' in its name, then Augusta National Golf Club, The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, Congressional Country Club and Merion Golf Club should all be flagged with {{ {{ and summarily deleted as well. Thank you again for your attention. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have more to add
 * I have explained on the user's talk page that the word "club" is not the issue. However, this is irrelevant here, since this is a discussion on the AfD proposal, not on {{tl|db-club}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I also want to point-out the prominent mention of the Charlotte Centre Curling Club on page 2 of the Spring 2010 newsletter of the Grand National Curling Club (http://www.gncc.org/images/v22n3may2010.pdf) already referenced in the article. The GNCC is the regional governing body of the sport of curling for Maine, Florida, and all states in between. This newsletter, published by a large organization, is a good citation as well as the USCA newsletter article I mention above. Please KEEP. Thank you. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore


 * Delete Most of WaxonWaxov's comments unfortunately do not address the reasons put forward for deletion. For example, nobody is likely to suggest deletion because "curling is not a sport", and if they do they will be ignored, as this has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looking, however, at those parts of WaxonWaxov's comments which attempt to give sources, we have the following:
 * 1) A link to Curling News which, unfortunately, is not working, so it is impossible to assess it.
 * 2) A link to a video which is restricted to viewers in the USA, and I am not: perhaps someone else can assess it and see whether it indicates notability.
 * 3) A link to a snip from a television show in which the point is more or less "Ha, ha, we had ago at curling and it turns out to be more difficult than you might think, so you can all have a laugh at us." It seems that the show used the Charlotte Centre Curling Club to film this.
 * 4) A fairly long article at the end of which appear the words "Source: The Charlotte Centre Curling Club", followed by four sentences in which a member of this club is quoted.
 * 5) A pdf newsletter in which the Charlotte Centre Curling Club receives a one-sentence mention.

Pending information about the two links I have not been able to see, I do not think that this constitutes substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort you took to look at my references. The video is similar to the one you were able to see in which you concluded that the the club was 'used'. As the the May US Curling News,it's working for me. (Windows Xp, Internet Explorer 8) I'm guessing you might not be able to see it for the same reason you can't see the video (not in USA). Meanwhile, [User:Tkfy7cf] has gone about dumping on a number of my submissions. I posted to his/her talk page a very well intended and nice message that basically said "please help me do better instead of dumping on everything I do." His/her response was to delete the post and otherwise ignore it.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Users are perfectly entitled to delete messages from their talk pages (with the exception of a current block notice) and are not obligated to reply. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and I am perfectly entitled to cut a loud fart in the middle of a funeral but being entitled to do so does not make me any less of a jerk if I were to do it.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable new local club. This has nothing to do with any anti-curling prejudice; but we're not exactly talking the Milwaukee Curling Club here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted above, well-written but not containing sufficient notability to meet any relevant standard.  As near as I can tell from the article, this is a sports club that has not yet played a single game; hard to imagine how that could be notable.  Some day, perhaps, but not yet.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Speedy Delete. Well-written enough not to lose text altogether. Delete per Accounting4Taste, above. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete per TransporterMan. Doesn't fit notability guidelines. Amphy (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I think Earl Andrew's point is that since curling clubs in the U.S. are relatively scarce compared to other local groups for other sports, they are notable.
 * Keep Curling clubs are inherently notable, and should be kept, especially clubs in the U.S. which are few and far between. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. I can't locate a policy reference that says that curling clubs are inherently notable (not even a suggestion at the portal page for the curling project).  Is there something you could point us all to?  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to see that too. Maybe I should start my own curling club. – ukexpat (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that "Curling clubs are inherently notable" is intended to be a joke, though I don't see the point of it. If it isn't then it is a strange view. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For example: I looked up skating clubs on US Figure Skating's website (http://www.usfsa.org/ClubSearch.asp) and serached for local figure skating clubs in a few states and found the following: New York (state)= 69, Ohio=31, Minnestoa= 51, and New Jersey=18 for a total of 169 figure skating clubs just in four states compared to about 170 curling clubs in the entire country.
 * Another example: I went to the US Tennis Association's website (http://www.usta.com/finder/findprogram.aspx) and searched for tennis facilities within 95 miles of zip code 10023 (which is in Manhattan) and found well over 100 results... just within 95 miles fo Manhattan.
 * Finally, I decided to look at gymnastics on USA Gymnastics' web site (http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/finda/club.html?prog=w) and searched for State=California, Programs Offered=All and got a 231 results.

So I think the point is that since curling clubs are so scarce in the USA and because the sport received so much attention during the last Olympics, curling clubs in the USA are notable.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that curling clubs being uncommon makes them notable is perhaps an interesting one. However, to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in any of Wikipedia's notability-related guidelines to support that view. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that the key word in your sentence isguidelines. Interestingly enough, on this page is says "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory..."--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please point-out to me where notability is on the Five pillars page? I can't see to find it anywhere. Jimmy Wales once said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." How exactly is Deletionism in that spirit? I know inclusionists like me say all the time that "Wikipedia is NOT made of paper." Maybe they say it because it's true.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability and the Five Pillars
 * assuming that this is a good-faith query - see Wikipedia:Notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * assuming that this is a good-faith query (1) Not everything about Wikipedia is in the "five pillars": you have to look elsewhere for much of it. (2) The very first pillar says that Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". (3) Jimmy Wales's comment cannot reasonably be taken literally, or we could have an article about what time I put my socks on this morning. (4) In other places at other times Jimmy Wales has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of deleting unencyclopedic material, and that he did not intend "all human knowledge" to be taken in the absurdly literal way some people try to use it. (5) Jimmy Wales's opinion is just one person's opinion. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by the authority of a particular person. (6) This is the place to discuss applying existing policies to the question of whether or not to delete a particular article. If you want the policy on notability to be overturned then there are other places to start a discussion on that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In continuation of the 'curling clubs are rare and therefore notable' conversation, I'd point out that the vast majority of curling clubs in the US are the only curling groups that are within their geographic area. For example, one could argue that the Dayton Philharmonic is notable because it is the only professional orchestra in the Dayton area. Some might try to say that they are not notable because they have never received a Grammy, or because they hardly ever record anything, but that would be unreasonable. Now take into consideration that the Charlotte Centre Curling club is the only club for a 100 mile radius (maybe more).--WaxonWaxov (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * '''The 'only one in town' Argument


 * Merge into Sports in Charlotte, North Carolina.-- Pink Bull  01:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Not a pro sports team.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't see why that would preclude coverage for sports that don't have a sports team. Besides, the latter part of the article discusses sports that aren't necessarily connected to a sports team.-- Pink Bull  04:47, 24 May 2010 (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.