Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill Regular Association for Poker


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Churchill Regular Association for Poker

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

Some college club, several self generated wiki-like mentions around, but no reliable sources to establish notability. Telegraph article linked in article does not mention this group. Could get one sentence in article about University I suppose, but again no notability to be found. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2914856 http://topokergames.com/poker_night_3_churchill_regular_association_for_poker_crap http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~gw288/constitution.pdf http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3428.msg%msg_id% 88.109.252.59 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The first link is a copy of a Wikipedia bio article with nothing to do with article. The others are nothing links -- announcing a game, the rules of the club... 2005 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - first link is a copy of the article Bill Chen presented by some devious route via Russia, but all it says is that the Chen is the Association's Hon. Chairman. The others are all listing-type mentions; I don't see the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required for notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete - I agree with JohnCD that notability si the issue. It certainly is a grey area as to what is allowed, especially when Wikipedia wants to expand.  As said by someone above,  College boat clubs all have their own pages.  What makes this less notable?  It has more references than nearly all boatclubs.  I've seen far worse articles.  I am inclined to keep the article, but maybe reduce it to a smaller article.  Deletion does not achieve much. 88.106.231.180 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. What makes this club less notable? The paucity of independent reliable sources, mainly. Note that the first reference used in this article, from The Daily Telegraph, would be an independent reliable source ... except that it doesn't mention this club nor does it have anything to do with the statement it is supposedly being used to support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Automobile_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_SPS_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Philosophical_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Law_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Players —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - My opinion is that I have put a lot of work into this article and referenced it as much as possible. The link to the Telegraph article is about a notable member.  The nature of the club means that it is very anti-media and is not mentioned well known outside of Cambridge and academic circles.  If you think it isn't then you might as well delete all of the following articles about Cambridge University Societies:
 * Please go back and compare this Wikipedia article to the Telegraph article and try and figure out the connection between them. There is none. The Wikipedia article uses the Telegraph article as a reference to indicate that Anthony Hewish is a member of the club, but Hewish is not mentioned in the Telegraph article. The main person mentioned in the Telegraph article is Guolong Li, who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article and is not clearly notable anyway. The Telegraph article does not even mention poker. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that somebody linked the wrong article from the Telegraph. If the club is so anti-media that it doesn't get discussed in mainstream press sources, perhaps it is for the best that we leave them out of this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is refenced as best as possible, and the Club is anti-media, then it obviously does not deserve an article since it plainly doesn't meet the criteria for an article. Mentioning other articles is irrelevant. Other stuff exists, maybe those articles should be deleted or maybe not, but this article is not even close to meeting the criteria.  2005 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - I've heard of this Society and know that it is notable. How many of the people in this discussion are actually from Cambridge? 88.110.81.213 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding your comments in four different places is not appropriate. Being from Cambridge is irrelevant.  The subject is not notable under the encyclopedia's guidelines, even if you have heard of it or are a member. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject of the article doesn't meet notability requirements. Rray (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2009 (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.