Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamarama Surf Life Saving 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article should beabout the club, yet most of the article is not about the club. The only sources that is actually about the club is this.This club fails WP:GNG.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - seeing sources provided by Northamerica1000 leads me to believe that the club is not clearly non-notable, however it doesn't seem clearly notable to me either. I agree that there's coverage there, but I don't think the coverage is necessarily good enough. &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current article is crap, but the topic is notable. This is one of the oldest and most significant surf lifesaving clubs in Australia, and it doesn't take much digging to see that you could easily find enough WP:RS to create an article. I am not interested enough in the topic to do said work, but at a bare minimum this should not be blocked from being recreated if someone does decide to write a better article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having just had my suspicions confirmed, I think there is actually a separate issue here that I'd urge people to think about. The editor who wrote this article, User:Pidzz, has an entire (and long) history that is full of either a) creating articles on notable topics that are so badly sourced they're deleted as non-notable, b) creating articles on blatantly non-notable topics, and c) redirecting articles on notable topics to lists and places that contain no information on them. This is a classic example of the mess he leaves behind: a topic that should have an article gets a blatantly crap one which gets AfDd, deleted, and then there's a discouragement to actually create a decent one. I presume he's well-intentioned, but he doesn't respond to messages and it's an ongoing mess that is impacting upon content. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep – Weakly meets WP:ORGDEPTH per, . N ORTH A MERICA 1000 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've had a stab at fixing the article and, from the sources found and used in that exercised, I think it is notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the club is a national icon and a by-word for surf life saving in Australia. The club featured as the centrepiece of a nationally televised Dulux campaign (here) and featured prominently in print and television advertising. It's certainly "coverage", though perhaps not "in depth". It stands to reason, though, that a club recognisable enough that only the word "Tamarama" need be flashed up on the screen for people to know they are talking about the surf club, is probably notable. My argument would be that it passes WP:GEOFEAT as a historical landmark for the surf life saving movement in Australia which is, itself, a feature of international tourism campaigns, Olympics opening ceremonies and official state welcomes. It doesn't inherit notability just by being a surf club and I'm not suggesting we go creating articles for the thousands of others; this one is genuinely unique. That the article might have needed work is not a reason for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - information may not be extensive but it is close to factual and provides a base for expansion.A M R Sydney (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2015 (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.