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. With the exception of moreno oso, all of the keeps are from accounts which have no edits other than to the article or this page. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage from reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OCUK - Outrigger Canoe Club UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There are no independent sources cited at all. I have failed to find evidence of notability elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - As per WP:CLUB this organization is the subject of citations and according to the WP:CLUB's first criteria which is directly quoted, "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". ----moreno oso (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)S[reply]

According to the same standard (WP:CLUB), it is required that: "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". This is not evident. CosmicJake (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It has been the subject, actual title of articles on other websites to include a dot gov UK site. In addition, the cached Google Search URL states that the club raised 10,000 pounds which is about $25,000 back in 2002 and the "largest club in the UK". By that very criteria, notability is met. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be verified that the scope of OCUK is national in scale. Since the scuttlebug.org website doesn't seem to exist any more, I would need a pretty good reason why this can be considered a reliable source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The scope of the club is irrelevant in this case as there is no coverage in reliable sources. All I see are directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - The Club's relevance is noted internationally in footnote 8, International Va'a Federation. I don't see scuttlebug.org but ocuk.org exists . -- User:tayles9587 (User talk:Tayles9587) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC). — Tayles9587 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP - OCUK is noted on the Great River Race website, International Va'a Federation and Paddle around the pier amongst others. ocuk.org is the most relevant website displaying the club's achievements and intentions.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennylw81 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) — Jennylw81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Sources cited do not amount to significant coverage. They verify that the club exists, but they do not verify that the club has any notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that a canvass has been made with new editors coming to this AfD and the article. It has a COI issue which may be the reason for the canvass. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment - I am not sure who the anonymous IP is that just editted the article BUT, it found a reliable site mentioning OCUK participated in an international tournament with their times/placement. WP:CLUB's two criteria are now met (quoted specifically):[reply]

• 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
• 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the #Primary criteria, above.)

My Keep is re-affirmed. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see thisDIFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The scope of their activity is not international in scope just because they competed in a single race in New York. But setting that aside, the second criterion doesn't just speak to verifiability, but significance of coverage as referenced by the qualifier "#Primary criteria, above". I have yet to see any significant coverage. Race results aren't significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That was just one example. They also bought their canoes from another nation. Significance for clubs is always marginalized unless the Mickey Club, said in all good faith, is considered. Mega clubs will receive mega coverage. Marginalized/new/small clubs - smaller coverage. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Let's disregard the scope of their activity as clearly we don't agree. Where is the significant coverage? -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete directory listings and result pages are not significant coverage., The article is a long way from establishing notability. Nuttah (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps merge into Chiswick#Sports.--PinkBull 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete does not meet WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (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.