Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springbok Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Springbok Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article subject is not notable: aside from a fleeting (ie not significant) reference in one article on the Guardian website, all references are fringe blogs or non-neutral websites. Prose has been plagued since its creation by problems with unreferenced/unverifiable statements and neutral points of view. With the greatest respect to those who have contributed to this article, or attempted to pull it up to scratch (I am part of the latter group), this really is the kind of article that I would be embarrassed to admit has an entry in our encyclopedia. AGK 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion, obviously, is delete. AGK 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's also another brief mention in another paper, but even two brief mentions in passing don't indicate notability. There are substantial NPOV issues with this article which can't be resolved with so few secondary sources. Those issues have resulted in edits that have swung the article between radically different accounts. It's an obscure group on the fringe of politics that isn't notable enough for an article. Will Beback talk 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative delete. I think there should be place on wikipedia for obscure groups and fringe politics - where else can you find out about half of these groups! However, I accept the points about lack of notability and POV issues. At the end of the day this appears to be a minor and insignificant group and realistically the only thing of note is as an episode in the Andrew_Roberts_(historian) article.--GeezerBird (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (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.