Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht 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 keep‎. given search for sources and improvement in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Southampton Yacht Club[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has existed unsourced for nearly 20 years. Lacks any substantive content other than where the club was located. Searches have failed to unearth "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MNewnham (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, United Kingdom, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might need to read WP:ATA. You don't inherit notability from having royal in your name nor does it exempt you from the sourcing test. If you can point me to sufficient sources to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG I would be happily corrected on my judgement regarding the lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't. Suggesting this is inherited is frankly ludicrous. They're granted the royal title for a reason. It's not just something they choose to call themselves. That wouldn't be permitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You were the one who suggested notability is obtained by virtue of having royal in the name, rather than through significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that yacht clubs with the royal prefix have been granted that prefix by a monarch for a reason. They haven't just adopted it because they felt like it. The royal yacht clubs are a select group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason then? Where are the significant independent sources attesting to this? Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero independent sources, fails WP:GNG. I hope the closing admin is smart enough to disregard the above !vote that's making things up out of thin air wih no such consensus or sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not making things up. Speaking from a position of basic knowledge. Always a useful thing to have before commenting, I find. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to become snide. Your argument that anything royal is inherently notable was quite obviously made up. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the comment I was responding to before accusing me of being snide! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care? There's a lot of things that have gotten royal charters, but there's simply so basis for automatic notability for them. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And usually they are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 seconds of Google Books searching brings up a wealth of reliable independent sources, several of which provide significant coverage. Waggers TALK 09:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did search Google Books and I'm not seeing that. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit in Southampton in 50 Buildings. I'm not sure about other sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is about their former premises. Certainly not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Waggers edits and articles about the early club history I found among the first 20 hits out of 1,945 matches from newspapers.com (available by signing it to Wikimedia Commons and then Wikipedia LIbrary), the article now has "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While I probably won't have time to peruse all the remaining 1,925 hits on newspapers.com, I will look for a few more recent pieces to add to the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Waggers and Grand'mere Eugene's improvements. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (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.