Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization, fails WP:CORP. The article has been in existence since March 2007 and has never had any references or indication that it is notable. Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local club. No references at all, and no suitable independent reliable sources found. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider in context of other, similar, articles I'll declare a weak interest, as Great Hucklow is the nearest GC to me, though I'm not a member etc. British Gliding Association list 35 clubs, of which 14 have their own WP articles; some of the other wls are redirects and the remaining clubs have links to their websites. Several of these articles are sparser than the one under discussion.  Not a reason for keeping D&LGC, of course, but maybe we want to delete several.   There is a mention of the field and its association with the World Gliding Championships in Great Hucklow, and this could be slightly expanded and linked.  Alternatively, we could build the D&LGC article to the strength of the better GC pages (I'd guess):Derbyshire and Lancashire together is a large area, the site has its WGC history and AFAIK the club remains active; what would make a more GC notable? I'm arguing for consistency here, so if the answer is nothing, they all should go.TSRL (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well the standard is WP:CORP, so if none of them meet it I would suggest they all be nominated for deletion. I found this article when someone linked in an article I was watching, did a search for refs, found nothing, PRODed it, had the tag removed and brought it here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The standard is WP:CLUB I believe, and it fails on both criterea listed there, unless there are some sources I couldn't find? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CLUB criterion 1 rules out any local sporting club not operating on a national scale. Since there is no UK wide GC club league far as I know, they all should go.  I think criterion 2 might well be meetable, but that's not relevant if 1 fails.TSRL (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:CLUB seems rather arbitrary to me, but this kind of organisation is too small to be notable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The club and site combined gets about 10 index entries in the autobiography of Ann Welch (Happy to Fly ISBN 071954033X John Murray 22 September 1983). WP:CLUB mentions 'national and international activity' which this club certainly has been involved with in the past and can be cited. The World Championships held there was the first to be held in Britain according to that book. I can add the references but I wonder if it is worth the effort if all the other British gliding club articles are going to be deleted? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, both per Nimbus' comments and my own belief that the umpteen thousand various definitions of notability are becoming more and more of a club with which to beat worthy articles, often simply because people don't like them. Wikipedia is not paper, therefore I fail to comprehend why so many things which are verifiable are smacked with a "not notable" argument. Is Wikipedia running out of space? I doubt it. So why not cover subjects like these, as long as they can be verified using secondary sources and have some claim to notability in any for beyond existing? AfD should be a case where the onus should be on those seeking deletion to prove why an article should not be in Wikipedia, not on those seeking to keep it to prove why it should. It seems to be the latter way, though, and that saddens me. [/Rambling] - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there is coverage about an accident involving the club but nothing indepth about the club like its history to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 18 December 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.