Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWA Mahjong 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.  Daniel Bryant  10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

UWA Mahjong Club

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable university mahjong club. Contested speedy. Guinnog 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Mattinbgn/talk 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I added the original db tag also finding it was non-notable. One reference is a primary source is from the university website and the others refer to MJ topics rather than the club itself. I left my concerns on the talk page. I might change my mind pending an adequate response from the article creator. UnfriendlyFire 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Almost certainly written by a member of the club, in which case it would trangress the guidelines in WP:COI.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry am not familiar with the protocol for leaving messages here. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest here - although it HAS been written by a member of the club, there is no advertising or information that would make it biased. Although there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club, it is certainly one of the very few mahjong clubs in university campuses worldwide. As stated in the article, mahjong is commonly seen to be an underground activity, and the aim of the club is to bring it into the open where it is less associated with gambling and more as an intelligent, interesting activity. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the things I didn't understand was why this club was considered a non notable organisation, when other clubs that exist in The University of Western Australia were considered notable clubs - not to say that they shouldn't exist, but just out of curiousity - perhaps I could then structure the article like that. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'll try to address all three of your main points. First of all, in WP:COI it states "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization,...". The entire article can be viewed as an advertisement to increase membership in your club.  In addition, listing yourself in the "Committee" names can be viewed as self-aggrandizement.  Secondly, you state "there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club", which almost automatically implies that it is not notable enough for inclusion.  In Notability, it states "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." If your club were notable, there'd be numerous newspaper and magazine stories about it, but there are none and so your club is not notable either.  The article thus fails to meet the official policy (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources."  Third of all, you wonder why your club was targeted for deletion versus all the other UWA clubs.  Please see WP:INN, which although not a policy or guideline, states "The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted."  It is likely that all non-notable clubs at UWA will show up here at AfD in time, and you can help improve Wikipedia by nominating for deletion any other club articles which you are aware of and which fail to meet the notability criteria.  I hope this clarifies why the UWA Mahjong Club article is likely to fail this AfD and be deleted.  It is simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable secondary sources which discuss it.  Thanks.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of those mentioned at University of Western Australia Student Clubs are redlinks or links to some other entity of the same name, or links to disambiguation pages. But following you pointing out the notability - or lack thereof - I have visited the links and added requests for additional references where appropriate.Garrie 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's one more UWA club article which isn't on that list: UWA Martial Arts Club. This one fits the non-notability criteria for speedy deletion WP:CSD (as do all of these clubs, really), so I have reluctantly added a db-club tag to it.  The list itself (University of Western Australia Student Clubs) is a strong candidate for deletion, or merging into the University of Western Australia article.  I really find no joy in this, since I'm much more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, but we have to draw the line somewhere.  WP is not the place to host extra, highly-Google-visible websites for these clubs.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: UWA Martial Arts Club has now been speedy-deleted by an admin. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: University of Western Australia Student Clubs has been speedy-deleted, undeleted, and now again speedy-deleted by admins. The remaining non-notable UWA clubs articles in question are UniSFA and The University Computer Club, the latter of which has now been tagged with prod. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It needs independant coverage to establish notability. One article does not get it there. Garrie 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I do not believe that this club is notable. However, calling it a COI is going a little bit too far, don't you think?  Lankiveil 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply: Perhaps you are right that COI is too strong a term to use for a student club. Yet the article falls solidly within the guideline listed at WP:COI, since it is certainly meant to increase exposure for the club and perhaps also to drum up membership.  So I think I was justified in quoting from that guideline. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 05:45, 27 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.