Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Orienteering 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New England Orienteering Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable club. Only 400 members. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Quite aside that nowhere in WP:ORG do I see a criterion concerning how the number of members affects an organization's notability, Google News has one hundred and one articles concerning this club. While many are of course brief notes and calendar entries, a number are not, and these four articles alone from the earliest hits (from the Boston Globe, Providence Journal   and Boston Herald ) establish significant coverage.  I spent more time typing this paragraph than was needed to research these hits.   Ravenswing  09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem rather wordy. Why not just say "here are four reliable sources that I found"? Using a mocking, condescending tone isn't very helpful and seems to insinuate I'm either an idiot or acting in bad faith. If there are reliable sources, the article will certainly be kept. Whether it will actually be improved with those references remains to be seen. More than likely, the references you found will be left in this AfD after it is closed rather than integrated into the article, thereby convincing people who know nothing about Orienteering clubs in the Northeast US that it's an actual club and merits an article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that you filed this AfD without making, as deletion policy requires, any attempt to find valid sources. It is neither idiocy nor prima facie bad faith to fail to follow deletion policy, but perhaps you could explain why you didn't do so, as well as upon what grounds you feel this group is not notable.   Ravenswing  02:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my haste in listing this without a full explanation. I also could not find what I believed to be "significant" coverage (Accounting4Taste seems to agree with me on this), although people may have differing opinions on this. I hope that this discussion will help resolve that issue and if the article is kept I will be glad to try and improve it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The four citations noted above don't appear to me to demonstrate notability; they seem like minor coverage on a purely local level and I can't agree that they "establish significant coverage".  When an organization's name indicates that it is restricted to a small geographic area by its very nature, I'd be looking for some evidence that the group has notability outside that area.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - on the condition that it can be expanded from its current stub status. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * weak delete or merge So far it all seems (woth the exception of fame by association) all local stuff. I would change to keep if more sources could be found extablishing more then local fame.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - news articles and other sources can be found and added very easily. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. Size is not everthing. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article clearly says that it has more than 400 members. In the 1980s, for example, it had over 700. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 26 April 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.