Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa District Badminton Association

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. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa District Badminton Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization. Stvbastian (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this local badminton org notable? It blatantly fails WP:CLUB, based on Gnews results. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, is not attained by just asserting it, but by reliably sourcing that it has been the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG — but the references here are almost entirely to primary sources such the self-published content of the association itself, the clubs and teams that are members of it, and the provincewide parent league that it participates in — and it's not the subject of either of the only two things here that represent acceptable WP:GNG-assisting reliable sources, one of which just verifies the existence of an individual person named in the article without actually verifying the reason why he's named in the article, and the other of which is just an unretrievable deadlinked bare URL (which is the reason why I keep getting on people's backs around always providing the full citation details and not just a bare URL: weblinks die, and we can't retrieve a dead reference from an archival source if we don't know what its title was.) So none of this properly demonstrates the assertion that it's a notable organization, because notability depends on media coverage, and this has none that I can locate. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2017 (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.