Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs (2nd nomination)

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. Shereth 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Nene River Clubs[edit]

Non notable club that failed first Afd. Perhaps merge to River_Nene. DollyD (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article failed previous AfD because it was unreferenced, and had excessive External Links. The new version has done away with the link farm, and is extensively referenced, showing Notability. Mayalld (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTrivial references in dubious sources. About 227 GHits and No G-News hits. DollyD (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to do more than merely assert that the references are trivial here, or are from "dubious sources" without any attempt to justify these labels, and Google is no measure of notability. DDStretch (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference to Peterborough Yacht Club newsletter leads to an article on the ANRC, in which the ANRC appears as a section heading, and (lower) a reference to an ANRC Rally, which is being organised and publicised by the MNCC; no reference to the ANRC as a body independent of the MNCC. Ning-ning (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra information: Reference 2 is a major magazine for information concerning canals in the UK; reference 4 is a major organisation that links various organisations concerning the use of canals for leisure in the UK; and reference 10 is an official website of the UK government organisation. I don't think these could in any way be classified as being "dubious sources", and so the comments by DollyD should be discounted on this matter. The comment by Ning-ning seems irrelevant in the context of these other references I have mentioned. DDStretch (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is a page containing a link to the ANRC's own website with text derived entirely from that website. Ning-ning (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you care to check again, because reference 2 is a link to Jim Shead's website. Jim maintains one of The UK's leading waterways websites, and has written for Waterways World, arguably the UK's leading inland waterway magazine. The page linked is an article by Jim that appeared in Waterways World Mayalld (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 2 is a link to Jim Shead's website, "Clicking on Canals" which contains a link to the ANRC website, and information which derives entirely from that website. If you go back through the Wikipedia article's history, you'll find a version which is very similar to Jim Shead's. Sorry for not providing a diff- haven't done that yet. Ning-ning (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and? It was an article for a major national magazine about waterway societies, and their websites! Mayalld (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and this Wikipedia article appears to be about that website, not about an actual association.Ning-ning (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although References 2, 4 and 10 are from possible reliable sources, each has only a brief mention of the Association of Nene River Clubs. The Association of Nene River Clubs is not the subject of any of these sources. These are trivial mentions at best. DollyD (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for admitting your previous Hyperbole. I now hope we be assured you will not attempt to misrepresent what you see as inadequate references again. DDStretch (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are misrepresenting my words. I admit no hyperbole. While a number of sources may not be of dubious origin, any references to the Association of Nene River Clubs are simply links to their website [1],[2] or a mention that it is part of a "Boat Watch scheme" [3] DollyD (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just found the webpage that actually provides details of the membership and activities. It has 197 individual members. Ning-ning (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please provide a link? DollyD (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link is available from article page. If the consensus is that the references are adequate, then this reference shows that the ANRC has an active membership. Why was this link not provided by User:Renata, User:Andy Dingley, User:ddstretch and User:Mayalld in the two AfD nominations? Ning-ning (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, it was not provided by myself because I have had only a minor involvement in this article and its re-creation very recently )after the first AfD) within a period when other matters had a higher priority; furthermore, it is not a subject in which I have any great knowledge. I for one are grateful that you have found the link, as all that matters is that there are improvements, and there is no reason to pursue the question of motivation (i.e., asking why) about the previous omission of the link, unless you feel it has a particular relevance to the issue. DDStretch (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just on the right side of notabillity. G-Man ^? 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Why was this recreated in article space instead of going through a DRV or being worked on in in a user sandbox? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was restored to my user space (most recent revision only) in the first instance. After improving the referencing, and getting rid of the link farm, it was moved back to article space. Shortly after this, the article was put up for speedy A7. It was then deleted again, and immediately restored by the admin who clearly appreciated that it wasn't A7 material. When restored a second time, all revisions were restored. As a result the page history is rather confused. Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per DRV instructions: " of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum." — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit history of the article and the discussion on [[4]] in section 38 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs) (the slasshes etc foul up a direct link here). I did restore it to user space (a sub-page of Mayalld's talk page), but it quickly got moved back to article space by this editor. As far as I am concerned, what I did was not incorrect, and the later action of moving it was not of my doing. DDStretch (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crucial message which shows the extent of my actions here. DDStretch (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is when, after I restored the deleted article to user space, the user concerned moved it back to mainspace or article space. DDStretch (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting aside the concerns about the process, the article makes no claim of notability for this club. The sources are not independent of the club, except for mentions of a neighbourhood watch participation. (Amusingly, Narrowboatworld reports on a guy getting fined for letting his dog poop alongside a canal.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion and we don't need an AfD to discuss mergeable content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, nobody has said the club is "just not notable". I disagree with the idea of merging a club made of humans to a river made by nature. A stream to a river, okay. No merge for a club which has no reliable sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination rationale just says "non-notable" without saying why it's non-notable and then says to perhaps merge. Neither are convincing reasons to delete. As far as the earlier discussion goes, consensus can change and is there a way to compare this article with the previous one? If not, then the previous one may have looked significantly different. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - The previous article is available in the history. The previous AfD result should stand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see why. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a number of clubs of people who are users of the Nene. The only Nene-based club that has an article at present is this ANRC. The River Thames has a separate article for Sailing on the River Thames which acts as a pseudo-portal for Thames clubs. Perhaps there should be an article Cruising on the River Nene to act in a similar way. Did not User:Renata offer to write up the other clubs? Ning-ning (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This Cruising on the River Nene article sounds like a good possible solution to me. WikiProject UK Waterways could contribute to writing it, and it would allow other clubs to be represented on Wikipedia as well. DollyD (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other clubs are already beginning to be represented via the List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom. It was an area almost unrepresented on Wiki, as opposed to the waterways themselves which are well represented. Renata (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong coverage in any independent sources. 203.10.46.22 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compared to my earlier feeble efforts, the article is very good now. Renata (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there an inverse form of WP:OWN? This obsession with deleting the article is no more than WP:JNN and looks awfully like simple intransigence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ... not to mention WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. WP:AADD also mentions that "frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point .... when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". Renata (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That rule applies when the result was not to delete! Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article as it is now is substantialy better referenced than the original, and as such an immediate re-listing was somewhat surprising. Mayalld (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I didn't nominate it the second time. (And a different person nominated it the first time. I Prodded it way back when.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.