Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Athletics 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. Star  Mississippi  02:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

On Athletics Club

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

Non-notable running club. No mentions found in RS, only blogs/ twitter and the like. Individual members are notable, perhaps TOOSOON for the club. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What are the qualification of a notable running club? While OAC doesn't have any Olympic medals yet, they certainly have made an impact in global competitions. Is the lack of non-traditional sources the bigger issues? Thanks Brank718 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lack of any kind of sourcing in newspapers, magazines or anywhere. Simply existing doesn't get them an article in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've added sources from the New York Times, Vouge, Outside, World Athletics, Runners World, Canadian Running, Athletics Illustrated, Citius Mag, and LetsRun. Would that that be proper sourcing? Brank718 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting for further assessment of new contributions to the article. Please do not remove the AFD tag while discussion here is on-going. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brank added some good RS sources for it to meet notability from RS. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.