Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Amateurs of Canada


 * 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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Radio Amateurs of Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No assertion of notability, no discussion of this organization in secondary reliable sources, does not meet Notability (organizations and companies). The private club has undetectable effect on the world outside its members. Existence of the organization could be noted in Amateur radio or some similar article. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - the RAC is the Canadian member of the International Amateur Radio Union, the administrators of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service in Canada, and they serve in a substantial advisory capacity to the Canadian government with respect to the regulation of radio communications. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Right now there are no references for that in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added a couple of sources. National amateur radio societies should have articles here.--Michig (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nominator's AfD voting score is pretty poor .  In 184 AFDs, has voted to delete 170 times.  Only 96 actual deletions among his delete votes, meaning an accuracy rate below 60%.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Score? Voting? Relevance? How many of the "keep" not-votes were on articles that got kept? And since the possible three outcomes of these not-votes are "delete", "keep" or "no consensus" = "keep", 56% is better than chance. Do your statistics include AfDs that I originated?  --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Wts that your nom should stand on its own merits, but at the same time I can understand concerns that a nom pay heed to wp:BEFORE (perhaps you have, and just view "discussion" differently than I do?) and seek to get a sense for what consensus views are on AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Grandmartin11's reasoning. If their government takes them seriously, as do other established experts/organizations in this field, then they are notable.  Someone just needs to find a trade magazine.   D r e a m Focus  22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are even more RS sources discoverable in a wp:BEFORE search.  Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reasons given at nomination seem bogus. OBSCURE is not a reason to delete; the nominator seems to be confounding notability with importance. "Assertion of notability" is only to avoid speedy deletion - articles in AfD don't require assertion of notability but "being notable". WP:ORG is not needed as long as there are sources that meet WP:GNG. An the nominator thinks that some of the content should be included in another article, so this should have been a merge discussion and not a deletion. Diego (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can certainly have a roll-call of hobby clubs, but obscure also means "not verifiable" and not notable. I read the Globe and Mail and my local paper, I watch TV news and listen to the radio - no-one ever talks about the ham club in the media. I've done a Google search and not found anything significant that shows any influence of this club on anything other than its members. Ham radio has become so unimportant to government that they've privatized licesning to this club...this doesn't seem to indicate that their activities or recommendations carry any weight. I'm sure the National China Dolls Collector's Association gives advice to goverment, too...but does anyone listen to the advice? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is an awful nomination. I've seen far worse.  But the gnews and even moreso the gbooks hits suggest wide coverage, for years now, with the coverage not being limited to Canadian sources.  Often the mentions are brief -- a paragraph or so in many books -- but the number of such mentions is so great that in aggregate I think they clearly confer notability.  All that has to be shown is that the subject has been sufficiently "noted" -- not that it shows any influence or is in any way famous or the like.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Pretty clear that this is a notable topic and I'm Non-Admin Closing this as a keep giving the nominator the benefit of the doubt that they were a little quick on the draw here.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 23 February 2012 (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.