Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redhouse Yacht 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.--Jersey Devil 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redhouse Yacht Club

Redhouse Yacht Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Long established club admittedly but no statement that it has done anything notable and no multiple non-trivial sources. I prodded this but the prod was removed after 6 days with the comment "enough incoming links not to be prodded". In fact, apart from redirects and a DMB, the only incoming link is one that I added to the locality article! Delete. Bridgeplayer 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see enough g-hits that are not just mirror sites etc. which discuss the Club. I also found three independent non-trivial articles which discuss the Club and/or its sponsored activities (regattas etc.) and added them as references --Kevin Murray 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Only the Centenary reference would be considered 'non-trivial' and even that doesn't show that the club has achieved anything other than longevity. I have taken out the last two because neither meets WP:EL for inclusion. Bridgeplayer 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's way out of line for you to be nominating an article for deletion and then deleting references and text based on your subjective interpretations of the WP Guidelines. I have reverted your deletion. You may be right about the quality of the references, but this should be discussed. I'm sure that you are working with the best of intent, but as the nominator I see implied bias toward the article. --Kevin Murray 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think that WP:EL is not the correct guideline for references. We should be looking at WP:CITE, specificaly the paragraph on a "Reference" section.

Discussion of References Proposed to be Deleted:

(1) "SHOOTING THE BREEZE" with Tim Stirk says: "THERE WILL be no organised sailing this week on the Border, as all attention will be focused on the 23rd Coca-Cola Eastern Cape inter-schools sailing championship in Port Elizabeth, hosted by Redhouse Yacht Club." I included this because the mention in this manner demsonstrates that (a) the Redhouse Club is hosting an event which is prestigious enough to receive all the attention in the area, and (b) the Club is "noticed" by independent journals which is among the criteria which WP standards define as Notability. --Kevin Murray 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) "Redhouse River Mile set for mid-February" says: " This historic annual event, first staged in 1924, will again be held from the Redhouse Yacht Club ... While the first Redhouse Mile attracted 48 participants, the 2003 event is expected to attract nearly 1 000 entrants." This definitely speaks to notability by demonstrating that the Redhouse Club hosts what is considered to be a historic event. Moreover, a 1000 participant swim-meet is a huge event which in and of itself may be notable for an article at WP.

(3) Both of the articles mentioned above are from online reprints of articles from recognized South African newspapers, at the official sites for the newspapers. How much more independent and non-trivial could the sources be?

(4) In and of themselves neither reference above is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but in concert, three sources certainly make an arguable if not compelling case for inclusion.

--Kevin Murray 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - per WP:NOT a server. Not really that notable a club. Part Deux 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Haven't done enough research to strongly advocate delete. Part Deux 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think being old establishes notability, and nothing else here seems to me to. delldot | talk 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep - notability clearly established now. While I don't think that all the sources assert notability - some are just trivial mentions, e.g. announcements - there is clearly enough here for inclusion now. Thanks to those who fixed it up! delldot | talk 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would direct Kevin Murray to WP:AGF which he should read carefully before accusing fellow editors of being biased. I invite anyone to say that the version [1] is not more encyclopaedic than [2]. Bridgeplayer 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting anything more than the appearance of objectivity is questionable when you are the nominator of an AfD. It is good form to discuss major changes which might be perceived as biased. I've not seen a nominator perform editing during an AfD discussion. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• It seems that you should withdraw the nomination if you believe that this can become a valid article through your hard efforts. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have written to the Club asking for help in finding other sources --Kevin Murray 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have posted Bridgeplayer's proposed text at the discussion page. I agree that it is more encyclopedic than the current text original text, but it is very short to the point of being a stub. I think that we should be looking at something in between and getting some feedback from the authors of the article. --Kevin Murray 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• On further review of the Club's website, I found that much of the text here at WP was cut & paste (unless they mirrored us). This was carried into Bridgeplayer's truncated version as well. This expeditied the need to rewrite the article to the form now shown. I suggest that footnoting from the references be postponed until a decision is made on the final text and the AfD. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's history extends back to 2005-09-07. The history at http://web.archive.org/web/20040703095833/www.ryc.org.za/History.aspx from 2004-07-03 clearly belies your theory that "they mirrored us", and reinforces the theory that Stephen Martindale copied the data from their website. Whether or not he had permission to do so is a question for him, as neither that page nor its parent http://web.archive.org/web/20040703094823/www.ryc.org.za/ sported a copyright on that date.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I think it is encyclopedic enough now, with enough clearly-documented references. Maybe we could even put back in some of the history from History | Redhouse Yacht Club, or at least refer to it?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, thanks for your hard efforts to find more sources and put them into footnotes - a lot of work! As to adding more history, I would tread carefully here, as a lot of the history at the Club website is probably only interesting at the Club level. --Kevin Murray 13:47, 29 January 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.