Talk:Westerley Cycling Club

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page contains valid information about one of the oldest and most significant cycling clubs in the south east of England. It is currently something of a basic article but the intention is to update it with more current information about the modern incarnation of the club as well as more useful information as to the clubs current activities and recent achievements.

I have now added a notification of the fact that the article is a cycling related stub, I hope it will not be deleted from wikipedia.

Alexpg 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, for an article to exist on Wikipedia it must demonstrate the notability of the subject through verifiable information from reliable sources. At the moment the article does none of this. Nuttah68 06:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These criteria appear to be somewhat subjective and this article does demonstrate notability. Furthermore, I would have thought that the club's own website would constitute verifiable proof of existence. I should also point out that there are many other similar articles on wikipedia, specifically those in the category 'Cycling Clubs'. Whilst I am prepared to accept that this page does not meet wikipedia standards, I would be disappointed to learn that this website does not in fact represent the ideals which it claims to. I notice from your contributions that you have marked a very significant number of pages for deletion, although this page is not so utterly devoid of relevant information as many of the others you have found.

Alexpg 11:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, obviously, question that the article demonstrates notability. However, at the moment the article fails the core 'ideal' of Wikipedia as it is not verified through reliable sources. Nuttah68 12:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Moving on the this claim of lack of reliable sources, I would have thought that a club's own website is likely to provide fairly reliable information on itself. Would it help if I refer to the history page [[1]] on the club website? This page contains more or less the same information as the wikipedia article. Alexpg 12:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you back to the links I provided, which I recommend you read. In particular the requirement that evidence of notability must come from sources "Independent of the subject". Nuttah68 12:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three external independent sources confirming both the existence of the club and at least some confirmation of its activities as stated in the article. I sincerely hope this satisfies your criteria. Alexpg 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my criteria, rather the basis of the encyclopedia. I really do recommend reading the policies and guidelines I have listed above. It appears that the claim to notability is the 'prominent role in the development of time trialling'. This is the key claim that must be verifiable and sourced. Nuttah68 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate would have been greatly simplified had you crystallised your exact objection at the beginning. That claim is slightly difficult to verify! Are these grounds on which to 'speedily' remove the whole page? Surely it would make more sense to simply remove that claim... I must say I don't understand precisely what is deemed to be acceptable and frankly no amount of reading of wikipedia policy pages is going to clarify that, since it would appear to be largely a matter of opinion. Alexpg 13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without that the article is making no claim to notability. For a subject to have a Wikipedia page the subject must show that it is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory. Now regardless of whether you believe the criteria are opinion, these criteria have been arrived at by consensus over many years are are what an article must meet to warrant inclusion. The main thing you need to show is that sources independent of the club have found it notable enough to have written articles/papers/etc about it. Nuttah68 13:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this debate to the third opinion page. I hope this is OK. I am quite willing to accept that this page is not of sufficient note to merit a wikipedia entry, but I would like to hear it from another user first. Alexpg 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It will take another opinion from an admin to delete if they see fit anyway. Nuttah68 14:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Notability cannot be established with a primary source, so the existence and content of the official website is irrelevant. Even verification must be achieved through secondary sources in preference to a primary source. Wikipedia is supposed to function as a tertiary source, which is one of its key principles. This article currently contains a small number of refs to secondary sources, which may be deemed enough to prove a sufficient degree of notability and provide some third-party verification, but none of these sources contain any editorial content that:

Demonstrates notability (because an independent source has seen fit to write about the subject).
Verifies what you have written about the club.

In this situation, it is perhaps an AFD candidate rather than an SD candidate, but if it goes to AFD, do not be too surprised if it is deleted. You will have to accept that this subject may not be demonstrably notable enough or inclusion. Deletion policy is another area with which you need to be familiar, Alexpg. With regard to the reason for the nomination: Editors do not need to "crystallise" their reason for a nomination beyond stating the infringed policy; it is up to every Wikipedian to read and understand the key policies and guidelines. My recommendation is that Nuttah68 should remove the SD nom and arrange an AFD nom in leiu of it, but if he still believes that the SD nom is valid, then he has a right to wait for it to be reviewed. The reason why this is not entirely suitable for SD is that SD is only for articles that clearly violate the policies in one or more of the categories listed at CSD. SD decisions are made without consensus, and I think that this article is in a marginal condition that deserves consensus. Adrian M. H. 15:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD[edit]

Ok, I've removed the CSD tag. Notability is asserted which is all that's required to disqualify it from the CSD process. Please note that I said asserted...that's different from having been proven through refs. The point is that if notability is asserted, then the AfD process has to be used, because that process then allows time for people to do what's being done here...debating the legitimacy of the refs. In looking at this article, given the history of the organization, it would most definitley be judged notable if sent to AfD. Don't believe me or agree? That's fine. You're most welcome to send it to AfD and see. However, this isn't a speedyable article. AKRadecki 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]