Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gaelic 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   delete. notability requires multiple references so by policy this falls to delete Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gaelic Club

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and uncited. Search for cites brings nothing back on the club itself. Jwoodger (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Delete- Article meets speedy deletion under spam.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete to Irish National Association of Australasia - which is another story in itself.  florrie  04:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was the in-depth subject of a Sydney Morning Herald piece. --Oakshade (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article doesn't support notability for the club in itself, in my opinion, but could still be used after a merge to the Irish National Association of Australasia.  florrie  11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When the topic is the in-depth subject of a reliable source, it passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, the source is the highest circulation newspaper on an entire continent.--Oakshade (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't dispute the notability of the SMH, but to me 266 words (excluding title) is hardly "in-depth".  florrie  02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but there's no denying it's not "trivial" coverage, ie a passing mention or directory listing.--Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content to Irish National Association of Australasia, club is not notable per guidelines. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If a topic has received significant coverage by a reliable source, it is notable per our guidelines, specifically WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but what is on offer is not significant in my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keepTeamQuaternion (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that, if you do not provide rationale explaining your input, it may not be taken into account in the closing administrator's decision. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable by history, events or circumstances. WWGB (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (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.