Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leander A.S.C
=[[Leander A.S.C]]=
:{{la|Leander A.S.C}} ([{{fullurl:Leander A.S.C|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leander A.S.C}}&action=delete}} delete]) –
Procedural nomination. This was prodded with the reason:
Non-notable swimming club--even if an Olympic swimmer once swam with them, I don't believe that notability is inherited in that way. Google News reveals a few hits where swimmers from the club are mentioned, but no discussion (even in passing) of the club itself.
I de=prodded it & sent it to AfD for discussion, because it seems possible that a club that sponsored such notable athletes might possibly be notable & that a discussion might be warranted. Not my field, and I have no opinion myself. DGG (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks DGG--I am the one who prodded it and I could not find any significant mention of the club at all. DGG is right in that it is not impossible that such evidence will come to light; until that moment, I vote delete. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources could be found to reasonably establish notability; it's an amateur swim club. Also, it's a copyvio of the [http://leander-asc.com/history/history_article.asp?ID=6 Club History]. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony--I guess I should have looked for something like that also. Too much good faith, haha. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. If someone does manage to rescue this article (which might happen given the number of swimmers who've competed internationally), it will have to be rewritten from scratch. It currently reads far too much like a sales pitch. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2009 (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.