Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milwaukee Community Sailing Center


 * 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 to delete, this article needs work or it will not likely pass its next AfD. undefinedUntil 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Milwaukee Community Sailing Center

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP; seems mostly self-promotional. Zim Zala Bim talk  23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found some newspaper articles about the center, and I think that notability is now shown. --Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Local sailing clubs are inherently non-notable except in extreme cases. Royal broil  05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This one is distinctive because of its commitment to outreach to young people who would normally never get a chance to learn to sail. I think that is enough to satisfy User:Royalbroil's concern. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While that is a laudable goal, that doesn't make it particularly notable, especially within our guidelines. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have written about it. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not satisfied. Almost all clubs outreach into the community. I see little salvagable text in the article - it reads like an advertisement for the club. Except if it can be shown that it was the first club to do something big, I see no reason to keep it. Royal broil  19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete- Just doesn't seem notable enough to be encyclopedic, along with coming off like an advert. If more sources are found I would consider changing my opinion. Rigby27   Talk  18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as sources have been added. faithless   (speak)  07:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, given the sources, seems to be just barely notable enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (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.