Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dart Yacht 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus that the sources brought by Toughpigs are not ideal, but are enough. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Royal Dart Yacht Club

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

No refs on the page for many years. One would think that sources might exist for a club of this age, but I'm not seeing anything which could be added JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There's a whole series of these Royal Thames Yacht Club,Royal Southampton Yacht Club etc that are barely more than stubs but all have 100+ years of history. There does seem to be secondary sources but for the Royal Dart, I had to go 25+ pages deep on Bing to find anything. MNewnham (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. If there are no sources to support the notability of any article then it should be nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note I have nominated Royal Southampton for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht Club. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations,  and Sports.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to pass WP:NORG with independent significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 00:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Yacht clubs do not get a free pass from notability requirements set out at WP:ORGCRIT, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Appears to have been unsourced for nearly 20 years, an indication perhaps of the lack of available sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately simply having royal in your name does not exempt you from the notability requirements. Surprised an editor of your experience would think so. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's why the club has "royal" in its name. It's not just adopted because they felt like it. It's been awarded by the sovereign. That means something. Surprised you wouldn't know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To discuss the sources IDed by Toughpigs Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see quite a bit of coverage in newspapers over the decades. "Luxury look for Royal Dart Yacht Club H.Q." (Herald Express, April 1974), "Yachtsmen aim to popularise the Dart" (Herald Express, Feb 1952), "Royal Dart Club innovations" (Western Morning News, May 1932), "Royal Dart Yacht Club sails to a plush new era" (Herald Express, Nov 1991), "Ocean races sprang from Royal Dart Yacht Club's coastal events" (Western Morning News, Jan 1950). Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: I've added the newspapers refs found by . This establishes half a century of solid SIGCOV in mainstream secondary sources., , : can you please give this a second look? Thanks! Owen&times;  &#9742;  16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I could quibble with the quality of some of those (one appears to be reworded minutes of an AGM or EGM) I can agree that at least two are substantial coverage. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references added by Toughpigs. Some are better than others, but certainly enough SIGCOV can be pieced together to establish notability per GNG.  Frank   Anchor  14:58, 12 March 2024 (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.