Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Services Recreation 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  05:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

United Services Recreation Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Only one source, which is not a news source, but a press release not about the institution per se, but about its finances. There is no notability apparent, and no references for any (meaningful) core parts of the article. alphalfalfa(talk) 01:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Have included other sources indicating notability Hyungjoo98 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's run down your sources:
 * 1. Fleeting mention
 * 2. See original nomination
 * 3. Inline citation says "In 2011, a book was published called Trees of the United Services Recreation Club." What does that have to do with the club's notability? You can't even read it on Google Books; its copyrighted, and obviously autobiographical.
 * 4. Routine
 * 5. Opinion section complaining about non-notable, routine problems
 * 6. Autobiographical
 * Please, read the WP:GNG guidelines for sources before claiming that those sources indicate notability. alphalfalfa(talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- an unremarkable private club; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - This club is quite notable in Hong Kong. Using "三軍會" to search on Google you'll find many useful sources. STSC (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's connected with USRC Tigers RFC, surely a merge is possible? Afraid I can't judge Chinese-language sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. If you read the USRC Tigers RFC page you can see that while the two organisations are linked, they have very different historical backgrounds. USRC Tigers could (theoretically) in the future decide to sever partnership, and USRC create a new rugby team Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per STSC. Deryck C. 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added news sources which would provide significant coverage on USRC. - STSC (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2017 (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.