Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Speleological Group


 * 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. The references found are to articles in the group's newsletter and to assistance from some of its members; they do not amount to the significant coverage of the group from independent sources required to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Westminster Speleological Group

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either the group's own website (not independent) or application forms (see WP:PSTS for that). Biruitorul Talk 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this group. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Doing a little google finagling, I was able to find several obscure citations referencing publications by this group as a geographical authority within this niche subject. As such, I assert that the group itself is notable.  Additionally, I've found a survey archive from the University of Bristol that references assistance from this group.   /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Publishing a newsletter, or being quoted by another club as having explored a cave once, is not tantamount to notability. See WP:GNG: a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One's own newsletter is not an independent source, and mentions of a few articles published there do not constitute "significant coverage". - Biruitorul Talk 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the references cited above do indeed show it is an obscure society, producing very minor publications indeed. They are furthermore just presence in a list, not significant coverage. I tend to be pretty flexible on this sort of topic, but existence is not notability.    DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of the independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 10:42, 6 December 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.