Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RusFighters Sport Club
Source: 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RusFighters Sport Club
- RusFighters Sport 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)
Fails
WP:ORG
which states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it."
So despite having some notable fighters associated to it, it fails to establish notability for an organization. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment in theory, this may qualify for CSD A7, but I would like to hear others' views on it. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the gym itself has spawned a few successful fighters, however, this article is a joke. To my mind, it fails CSD G11 as this article doesn't even attempt to establish notability, it just advertises the gym as though the writer worked for the gym. If it is to stay, the whole thing would have to be rewritten. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added significant content to the article, he wrote text as 'we' and 'our'. G11 is correct now. Don't know, can we nominate CSD if AfD is in progress? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once AfD is started it is best to let it run its course since if deleted it is much easier to CSD a recreated article The CSD on A7 is not clear cut in any case - unfortunate writing style aside.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, A7 may not pass. I'm thinking of G11. But it is understandable to not CSD while AfD. I doubt this article would survive AfD. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 03:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once AfD is started it is best to let it run its course since if deleted it is much easier to CSD a recreated article The CSD on A7 is not clear cut in any case - unfortunate writing style aside.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added significant content to the article, he wrote text as 'we' and 'our'. G11 is correct now. Don't know, can we nominate CSD if AfD is in progress? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There doesn't seem to be any significant independent coverage of this club. In fact, this article doesn't have any non-primary sources. The club may have some notable members, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (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.