Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport ACF

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Newport ACF

Newport ACF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Newporte ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'm not aware of a policy prohibiting the inclusion of youth programs and summer camps. If someone is searching for these youth programs I don't see anything wrong with providing encyclopedic information on their history and operations. If you contact them, I'd be shocked if there haven't been local news stories about their prgorams and the youngsters involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep Newport AFC is a youth organization and is directly involved with the town, this group has been around for over 60 years and has been in the press numerous times. (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

• delete no reliable sources, no notability demonstrated. The "strong keep" above comes from the originator of the article (not relevant to my vote, but worth bearing in mind).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the creator of the article and I hadn't seen it before today. I trust you'll correct your statement and thank me for doing a refimprove and other fixes to that article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This organization is mentioned in the Copthorne, Shropshire article. The Army Cadet Force has a great looking (I said "looking" I didn't scrutinize)) article. The only issue is whether it's Cadet Force or cadet force. Would a redirect be warranted? It's clearly a legitimate and notable subject. Would that all the articles on Wikipedia were as significant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment mention in another wiki article is about the worst sourcing for a separate article on anything one can imagine. But merge to the shropshire article with a graph or two there might work. I'll correct nothing--- i was talking to bnustudent. As for thanking you, it's still an article without a single reliable secondary source. So, no, thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, and I see no notability. Somebody change my mind. I'd be inclined to do {{db-club}}, but given the debate, I'd rather it be here. Can we bring something up for this group, besides some honors issued, that fit the bill with WP:ORG? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment - I nominated this article for deletion. Newport ACF is simply a detachment of young people, numbering no more than 40. Its one detachment in Shropshire Army cadet force, which is also nominated for deletion. A single detachment, and county force is just not notable enough as an organisation. Wikipedia is not google and its not the yellow pages .. Sorry but this article really should go. If you want to write about the Army Cadet Force, improve that article. jezarnold 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezarnold (talk • contribs)

• Delete as per all the other non-notable cadet units that have been nominated before. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There's no evidence that this meets WP:ORG and there's a long-standing convention that individual cadet units are generally not notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2008 (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.