Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plainfield Curling 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, default to keep. Editors on both sides of the debate have kept the bulk of their comments focused on the core question of whether there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable, sources (and, to a lesser extent, the applicability of various subsidiary notability guidelines, such as WP:ORG). There is a clear disagreement as to whether the coverage that does exist is sufficient to clear WP:GNG, and I don't see consensus on that question. Steve Smith (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Plainfield Curling Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable club. Operating "the only curling facility in New Jersey" is a far stretch to claim notability, and no other fact in this article comes even close to claiming notability. News coverage is exclusively of the local interest variety. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the gNG. Only local mentions. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- doesn't clear WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Under the Curling Clubs section of WP:CURLING/Article Guidelines "unusual location" is considered notable. Since it's the only dedicated facility in the state that seems like an unusual location to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A202985 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears to meet the WikiProject Curling guideline. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very wary of guidelines from niche projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In all discussions of notability at Wikipedia, "reliable, secondary coverage" always excludes local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization). All of the media coverage for this curling club come North Jersey specific media. None of the reasons for coverage (hosting a major event; unusual location, membership or other controversy; or status as a home club for a national, world or Olympic champion) apply to this club. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears RAN is just pointing to a guideline with no explanation. I also don't see how being the only club in the state makes it "unusual". Of course, its not clear what exactly would constitute an unusual location. Would a curling club in Arizona be unusual because its hot there? How about one in Hawaii? WikiDan is correct though, coverage of organizations need to clear WP:AUD and this does not.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization)" is a made-up definition not specified anywhere in guidelines, whereas there the above cited mentions: state-wide and regional as being completely satisfactory for GNG.Djflem (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, its not "made up", this is an organization so WP:AUD applies.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you point to a place within Wikipedia that says local "coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization" then it is made up, and as such is an invalid argument and expression of a POV:personal point of view.Djflem (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just did point to the specific place, learn to read. It says, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try to "learn to read", look for, and point out, and post where it says "coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization". Why? Because you can't cite that made-up stuff. But yet continue to cite something that doesn't back up your argument. The policy you are citing does say: "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", which this article does and which you'll easy see if you learn to read yourself.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. All the sources are from NJ or NY 2. You can't just pick and choose the part of a sentence you like best to quote, you left out two words, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."--Rusf10 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting on the verifiability of the made -up stuff about local coverage from you. When can we expect that? But, in the meantime, thanks for pointing out the at least one part. If you will read correctly, you'll note that there is at least one. In fact, there are multiple state-wide and regional sources, aren't there?Djflem (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:AUD guideline is clear and certainly not made-up, as usual you are engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. at least one means there probably should be more. And when all I see for sources is the local newspaper, one article in the local section of the New York Times, and the local NBC affiliate, how is that meeting the requirement?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but your usual commenting and accusations don't mean a thing. Nor does the attempt to move the goal post or cherry-pick. Provide a policy for the statement made-up "local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization)", which you were backing, prove that the multiple sources are not "state-wide and regional"(by the way, "at least one" means "at least"), or as you earlier suggested to me, "learn to read" since the "And when all I see" comment suggests that you're missing something.)Djflem (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Satisfy: ORG and WP:AUD (statewide, regional, and a book) plus multiply reliable sources which satisfy Verifiability for claims made.
 * Delete New Jersey is not an unusual location for a curling club, even if there is only one there. I think the reference actually claims that it's the only dedicated curling facility, not that it's the only organization.  The curling project's guidelines are simply guidelines.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep pass GNG.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You've done some extensive work finding sources for this article. Unfortunately, the sources that have been added that go beyond local coverage are articles that are either high school newspaper articles (i.e. not reliable), or mere mentions in passing. I'm still not seeing the depth of coverage needed for this to be a notable organization.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources are either local coverage, or passing mentions.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources are either local coverage, or passing mentions.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources are either local coverage, or passing mentions.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources are either local coverage, or passing mentions.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (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.