Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator, per concensus. However, I plan within the coming days to review each of these articles and nominate at least some of them for deletion. If you have any interest in saving an article listed here, keep it on your watchlist. Hellno2 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

Non-notable organization. Does not contain references to meet WP:Notability requirements, only external links to its own site or those advertising the club. I also added the following articles to the nomination for the following similar reasons:

These clubs pertaining to outdoor activities generally do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines
Though there may be external links, they usually are to the club's own site or to other sites that are not worthy of establishing notability
These clubs are generally localized to one region
Though these clubs may have been around for at least several decades, sometimes over a century, age of an organization, especially without verification from an outside reliable source, does not mean automatic notability.

Hellno2 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hate to be a party-pooper but I would have hoped for separate nominations. Although most of them fail WP:ORG, some of then are "mergable" and some aren't.
~~delete~~oops i meant KEEP(DAMN you dislexia!!!) statewide makes it seem notable to meMyheartinchile (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I too strongly suggest that these be brought here separately. They cover some very different things. Some are possibly not notable, but some might well be, like the British Canoe Union, which covers the country and is not local. They also are in different countries. A combined proposal like this is unlikely to allow editors who are involved to know about the proposal. --Bduke (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist separately. There's no way that the notability of these subjects is linked, so they should be listed separately. Also I would urge you do do a Google Books search before listing the Royal Canoe Club - I don't think that many people would agree that a subject with over 300 book sources including the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Chambers's Encyclopaedia doesn't have notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a trainwreck. These need to be nominated individually on their own merits. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (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.