Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorian Polo Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Polo Club[edit]

Victorian Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"One of the oldest polo clubs in Australia" is not sufficient claim to notability, and none of the sources cited are reliable and independent of the source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am surprised actually. I thought this one would leap out with notable reliable sources, but no. The Melbourne Polo Club (Melbourne being the capital city of the state of Victoria) seems to be potentially notable but it does not have an article? Aoziwe (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. Needs more third party coverage besides being one of the oldest clubs. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2016 (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.