Talk:Imperial College School of Medicine Boat Club

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Imperial College School of Medicine Students' Union.

University rowing is not commanding news coverage outside of local publications that are rarely on the interent. Here is a far from complete list of university rowing, i suggest you look at these before deleting. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/University_rowing_(UK) The lack of news coverage extends beyond university rowing to all university sports and if these are the criteria that wikipedia set then a huge list of university sport pages can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citysnake (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Citysnake (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a club with over 100 members, making it the same size as http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/RUMSBC whose page has existed since 2008. The ICSMBC page also contains more informations than other boat clubs such as http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Clare_Boat_Club.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --129.31.74.0 (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vital part of medschool life.

No reliable objective sources given to support notability. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be kept and expanded with some better refs and more history etc. It maybe doesn't need the whole list of officers etc but otherwise I find it interesting and encyclopaedic and would like to see it improved, not discarded. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the moment deletion is no longer the issue, but reliable sources establishing notability and WP:COI do seem to be. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavor to get some more sources over the coming weeks (although it already has more than the majority of university boat clubs' articles I've seen). Citysnake (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled the club and found little or nothing in the way of reliable sources, i.e. articles about it. As for other boat clubs, perhaps those articles welcome scrutiny. I haven't started going through them, for concern that it will look like I'm on a regatta vendetta. As you've been warned, it's best if you don't tag other pages, either, for similar reasons. That's the problem with editing as a WP:SPA to work on one article-- neutrality is inevitably compromised. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"regatta vendetta" is really jolly good! :) DBaK (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that an album by The Police? 99.156.70.138 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The club predates the internet so just because your Google search didn't give many returns doesn't mean sources don't exist. I shall look for articles in print media when I am able to gain access (some time next week). As for other articles, tagging them certainly wasn't out of spite; I'm new to this and am therefore learning so when I learn about rules I will seek to minimise disparity between articles. If, like you say, the clubs welcome scrutiny then they should have no problem with it. And just because this is the first article I've written (or should that be attempted to write?!) doesn't mean it shall be the last. Citysnake (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... predates the internet ..."? 1997? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in ICSM or boat club but I can tell you that this is an excellent, objective account of a very important club on the tideway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.40.217 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a gentleman and a scholar and I can tell you that this is an important club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.40.218 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --90.195.15.129 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author has already given reasons for why it should not be deleted. I, as an objective 3rd person accept them. And this page is notable enough to remain on the site.

I am deleting the tag because no comment giving reasoning behind it was made on the discussion page.