Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devas 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 no consensus. Recommend revisiting this in a few months after a deeper search for offline sources can be undertaken.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Devas Club

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be purely promotional article, unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online. Hadal1337 (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's long history and links suggest that it is indeed notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete being old doesn't make it notable. It's a local youth club, and most local youth clubs aren't notable, this one doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: A notable historical club founded in 1884 with references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Bduke. And note that being "unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online" is odd as one story (which is already linked from the article) turns up immediately on the standard search linked above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct regarding the one story being on Google. However, one hit on Google from a local news publisher does not make an article notable. Furthermore, a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is not notable in any sense. Hadal1337 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep.  a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is certainly notable.  Besides as its been around nearly 140 years there is probably more coverage which is not on line. Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My local post office has 168 reviews on Google. Google reviews do not imply notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Were you able to find more coverage offline or were you assuming there were more coverage offline? Hadal1337 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this WP:SNOWBALL? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering most of the votes are just saying "old so notable" without demonstrating notable references, no it isn't. It's not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it is notable based on the sources already in the article, also noting the following two. They both include quotes, but I still consider them sufficiently independent.
 * 1) https://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/18874820.devas-club-gets-government-financial-boost/
 * 2) https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/21122020-battersea-youth-club-looking-to-raise-funds-to-reduce-energy-use CT55555 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of those are local news sources, not enough significant coverage in my opinion. Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Battersea and Delete added merge option as per ATD Yes it is old, yes it has been mentioned in some newspapers over the years, but ... there are no sources available which meet our criteria for establishing notability. Newspaper articles based on information from affiliated orgs or announcements are not "sufficiently independent". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does not specific coverage by the UK House of Commons confer notability ? I think the combination of references is enough for WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, Volume 73 of the "Sessional Papers" records the formation of the Devas Institute as a charitable trust and records its constitution. The information is PRIMARY, fails ORGIND. It is also the case that is was common practice for the constitution of charities to be recorded in the sessionary papers in this way as parliament recorded various endowments given to charitable uses (mainly churches, hospitals, orphanages, veteran's homes, etc) as part of the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - based on a review of the current sources, and an unsuccessful simple Google search for additional sources. Fails WP:GNG. The most notable thing about the club appears to be the recent coverage it got for its 125 year anniversary.  If the club were truly notable, its anniversary coverage would warrant more than a little box on page 15 of the Lambeth Life free publication. I wouldn't be opposed if someone wanted to add a "culture" section to the Battersea article with a Devas Club redirect, and briefly mention the club. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Battersea, its a community assets and therefore a viable search term as shown by google search. Stub yes, but it is notable >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 23:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: in assessing the notability, the previous name of "Devas Institute" should also be checked. There are 701 mentions on Google including articles, etc. (e.g., see 130 Years of the Devas Club, p.12, Home Front Legacy 1914-18: Devas Institute, 82, New Road (PRN: 10670), etc.) Looks like enough, IMO. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Response Good call to point out searching for "Devas Institute". The article "130 years of the Devas Club" was written by "former Devas Club Trustee Tim Gee MBE" who was involved with the club for 44 years so that would mean he wasn't "unaffiliated" to the organization and the source would fails ORGIND for the purposes of establishing notability. The other link is simply a map pointing out that the club is on the site of an air raid shelter, no in-depth information on the *organization*. Fails CORPDEPTH. Neither of those sources are meet NCORP criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the Devas Club/Institute is largely of historical interest and note, I am seeking help from a historian colleague to find more in-depth articles from historical sources (not likely to be online). I hope to have more information on this next week. I believe this book includes coverage, but do not have it to hand: Terry Powley (2014), Getting On With It: A History of London Youth ISBN 978-0957087323. Overall, I believe there is coverage that is not available online. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.