Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travelers' Century 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Travelers' Century Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promo, partly copyvio of http://travelerscenturyclub.org/countries-and-territories/retired-territories (list of retired countries), close paraphrasing (or copyvio??) of http://travelerscenturyclub.org/countries-and-territories The Banner talk 15:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It appears that the proposer is having an issue with the list of territories, not the entire club article. If so, we should talk about that not outright delete the entire entry. The club is notable enough and a large number of secondary and even tertiary references have been provided to support notability. Further, the list is the main criterion for club membership and as such is an integral part of the club. The source page of the list does not display any copyright restrictions (WP:PD), hence, reproducing it here cannot possibly qualify as copyright violation. It is more akin listing all 16 NFL teams in the NFL article having copied it from NFL site in its entirety. If this explanation not sufficient, we can work on addressing it, but deleting the entire page is probably an overreaction.Truther2012 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, my friend. a) I consider the whole article promo. b) The whole club with "More than 2,000" members worldwide fails to garner sufficient independents and reliable sources (conform WP:RS) c) Your remark about copyright is fundamentally wrong. Everything is copyrighted, signed or unsigned, unless it is specifically stated that it is free of copyright. d) Your personal comment make clear that you have a Conflict Of Interest. The Banner talk 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I'm wrong, but let's try this... a) what's your definition of promo? b) the link labeled books at the top of this page results in 612 printed published mentions, i dont even count mutlitudes of internet articles - is it not enough of WP:RS? c) maybe, then what's your take on copying the list of NFL teams in its entirety from explicitly copyrighted NFL website? also, how can one copyright protect a list of countries? d) which comment did you take as personal? how is that an indication of WP:COI? Truther2012 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * a) advertising, promoting your organisation to a wider audience. b) Not necessarily. It is the quality of the links that makes them reliable sources. A passing mention is a Google hit, but not a reliable source. (Example: ). c) Taking a list of NFL teams or a list of countries is indeed seldom a copyright violation. But your list lists countries that no one else will list as countries, as they are not independent states (Example: Alaska). That makes your list unique and identifiable. In this case as copied from the TCC-website. d) What I took as personal and emotional responses were these: It appears that the proposer is having an issue with the list of territories, not the entire club article. and If this explanation not sufficient, we can work on addressing it, but deleting the entire page is probably an overreaction.. Throwing in emotion is a real good indicator of a (too) close connection of the subject.
 * And finally: e) In your first reply you sound like a marketeer trying to protect his article... It is not illegal to write an article for your employer or where you have a close connection with, but it is strongly discouraged. Main reason for that it makes it real difficult to judge if information is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia and to judge if the subject is worthy of inclusion at all. That is why Wikipedia as the common saying Do write about yourself. When you are important enough, somebody else will do it. The Banner talk 21:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * e) let’s get this one out of the way first – I have zero affiliation with the Club - not a member, owner or employee. a) I think, this article seized to be a possible promo the moment the Controversies section was added. b) Sure, but most, if not each, book or Google hit mentions a particular person as a member – this on its own substantiates a claim of over 2,000 membership. At the same time, every other club article on Wikipedia only provides club’s homepage as the source for membership (e.g. Sierra Club). c) I would argue that NFL team list is just as unique and identifiable. Further, posting it here allows for dissemination of educational information, such as links to countries’/territories’ articles. The list itself is based on a set of rules and as such is reproducible (unlike NFL team list). d) No emotion, just wasn’t clear whether you are concerned with the list or the whole article.Truther2012 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but one controversy is not enough to whitewash the promo in the rest of the article. The Banner talk 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see anything overtly promotional about the content of the article. The club itself meets notability with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Much of the material is behind paywalls, but the club is the headline subject of the articles.  See, , .  Also found singificant coverage where they werenot the primary topic: , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic meets Wikipedia's notability test WP:N. Source examples include:, , , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 03:20, 30 July 2013 (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.