Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yarra Yarra Rowing 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. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra Yarra Rowing Club

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

A PROD was reverted without improvement. This article has been a COPVIO from the club's website. The SPA who wrote it found no reliable independent sources since 2008. It appears on social media sites including Yelp, but no independent reliable sources even today. No value to WP to replicate the promotion from the club's site. Rhadow (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a single purpose account, and my searches online didn't reveal anything worth writing about other than the promotional content already in place. Its already listed at List of rowing clubs in Australia which is a minefield of red links in itself. -- Longhair\^talk 11:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 11:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for what it was in the 19th century rather than what it is today. See e.g. coverage in Trove. Comfortably passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a lot of the TROVE content is routine sports events results reporting, there are many thousands of hits, it should be possible to write a more in-depth article. There are hits on annual general meetings, coaching staff and policy, etc. SPA creation - yes - but a single one off edit, and it has had a few editors since. The declined PROD was only yesterday - they might come back? Overall regardless of article ancestry seems to be more than enough WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more than 100,000 Trove hits and the historical interest going back a century and a half make this a keep, in my opinion. Article obviously needs some care and citations. SunChaser (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about 90% copyvio, which I think someone will be along shortly to rev-delete.198.58.171.47 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2017 (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.