Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottsdale Gun 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottsdale Gun Club

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not-notable. Originally tagged as db-advert, and later tagged for references, but those tags were being deleted rather early. Sigma 7 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I replaced the speedy tag the first time the creator removed it. The creator (wrongly of course) pulled the tag a second time. However, I did not replace it on this occasion because by then the article had been hanging around for two days and no admin had been prepared to touch it. I think it was correct not to speedy it; the page asserts notability and seems factual - no more of an advert than any article for a commercial organisation. As a Brit I have no expertise to judge gun clubs but if as the source says this is the 'nation's largest indoor shooting range' then, presuming there are a lot of them, that seems pretty notable to me. At present it needs a good dose of sourcing but that is a different issue. I am withholding a 'vote' until I have seen more discussion. TerriersFan 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  as an advertisement.  Philippe Beaudette 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work, but notability is asserted. If notable businesses read like ads, then they should be fixed through editing, not deletion. Bobanny 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be re-written, made less of an advertisement.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep contingent on reliable sourcing. The assertion of notability is very weak - the claim is supported by some websites I found in a search.  Confusing the issue however is the fact that numerous websites made varied claims regarding the size of the facility, ranging from "Largest indoor shooting range in the nation" to "Largest public shooting facility in the world".  Which, if any, is left rather unclear by a lack of compelling authoratative evidence pointing one way or the other.  If no reliable sourcing can be added by the end of this AfD then I support a delete, however. Arkyan 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any counterclaims in a google search for "largest indoor shooting range," and that claim is cited in the article. In any case, an unconvincingly sourced claim is cause for a tag in the article and some research, not deletion. Bobanny 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Establishes notability and has a lot of information. I'm a little wary of the article being created by a user named "Scottsdalegunclub", but it appears to belong in WP. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am happy to go with the emerging consensus. I have cleaned up some of the more questionable parts. What it needs now is wikifying and the finding of a review article to source the main elements of the descriptions in the main two sections. TerriersFan 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the group is notable. (and I say this as a longtime competitive shooter). &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The largest indoor shooting range in the U.S. is pretty much notable just for that fact. Realkyhick 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it also has just 671 GHits, far too few to be considered notable by any means. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 22:55, 28 March 2007 (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.