Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Surf League

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 of the debate was no consensus (article is kept) (Liberatore, 2006). 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Surf League

Delete Non-notable organization/competition. Reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It has no history, no claim to notability and only 600 Google hits, most of which are press releases from the organization itself. - pm_shef 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) pm_shef 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I had originally added a few tags, including {{notability}}, last month, but did not go so far as to even {{prod}} because it looks like there is the kernel of a good article and calim to notability. I would say that an organization that is now in its seventh year is well established. Agent 86 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an annual lifesaving competition, 7 years in or whatever, not to mention the first in Canada's atlantic provinces. I'm not sure, could even be all of Canada. draws hundreds of competitors, some going on to represent the province in national competitions and even some in the US and in Australia. It's not a profit organization, so It doesn't have really a need to advertise, and if someone wonders what it is, why shouldn't they be able to find out on here? SECProto 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) addendum: I was recently reading about Systemic Bias in Wikipedia, and about the variety of subjects which are not covered. If they are outside the technological field, then they are less likely to get any attention, etc. I think this article almost fits in that category - Due to the subject of the article, it will be neglected (or in this case- nominated for deletion). And another note, in a search on google, the nova scotia surf league gets results not so much from the government of canada/nova scotia, but from the NSLS (government sponsored), the lifesaving society, and the major paper of nova scotia (the chronicle herald). Anyway, I'll stop rambling. SECProto 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a lifeguard, so I'd hardly go around accusing me of bias against lifeguard competitions *rolls eyes*. Anyways my point about most of the google hits being press releases still stands, and the fact remains besides being the first in atlantic Canada, it makes no claim to notability. - pm_shef 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No worries about the systemic bias, i never accused you of it - I just said it almost seems to fit in that category. No offense meant, the topic just stuck in my head. Being the first of a competition type in Canada isn't notability enough? SECProto 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer If it is was the first in Canada then yes. But it's the first in a single region. There already exists may other competitions in Canada, including an official competition circuit run by the Lifesaving Society of Canada with provincial championships, national championships, etc, etc. - pm_shef 01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I figure it's notable enough. I don't know all the details on it, nor the whole lifeguarding scene. But i figure notability can be a lame reason to delete an article :) SECProto 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm Sorry. Notability is the main reason to delete an article. - pm_shef 02:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I dispute your claim that this article is not notable. This debate we appear to be having is not that important, whether this article gets deleted or not is not very important. 32kb on the wikipedia servers is really not that important, and I seriously don't think this article is somehow against the goals of wikipedia. SECProto 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sport seems to be growing. -- Usgnus 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' agree with Agent 86 as above. -- MrDolomite 17:09, 21 June 2006 (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.