Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our 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 Speedy deleted as spam. The reasons given to justify the article's existence are nice marketing material, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.. Spike Wilbury 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Club

Our Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per criterion A7. --Haemo 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried to research "A7." I was not very successful. Did find this comment: "CSD A7's wording is way, way too broad. The criterion is used by admins to delete anything arguably non-notable, and even notable things. Hence, a deletion of the criterion is necessary." Am I on the correct page? Thanks.Student7 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CSD i.e. Criteria for speedy deletion. cab 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It obviously needs improvement. I do not see that it meets any of your criteria for "speedy deletion" which is blatant advertising, nonsense, etc. This club has more voluntary members than most of the towns in rural areas have people. Maybe more than some YMCAs and Gold's gyms. Student7 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability and no independent, reliable sources cited, just own website. cab 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more references. The club has been featured as "unique" and newsworthy in many articles in the local (Gannett-owned) paper (human interest, not PR club stuff). Unfortunately, I am not in a position to retrieve those articles right now.Student7 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Redelete, actually. As it is right now, it is clearly (still) a prime candidate for speedy deletion. (Not-for-profits advertise, too, afterall.) What makes this random Florida fitness club "notable" for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Student7 wrote a great narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that the subject just doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic material. In response to the "justification for retention" below, I should add that one argument that could be used for the inclusion of Gold's, the YMCA, and so forth are that they are historically notable (and quite sizeable, if that matters). I'm not sure if Bally and 24 Hour Fitness have the same claim to historical significance, although both are sizeable public companies (i.e. 3 million members or so each, compared to 2,500 for "Our Club"). Really, truly, speedy delete.  :( Justen 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for retention

It is unique for a) being a coop gymnasium, b) at $30/month being affordable, and c) being self-supporting, not begging for donations like the YMCA, or whatever, d) paying normal regular real estate taxes (!) , (perhaps as non-profit not paying corporate taxes though) e) offering most classes free including dozens of aerobics, and water classes weekly and f) for constructing and owning it's own multi-million dollar building. It could be a model for all future coop gyms in the country. Instead we have Ys begging for corporate suppport and not paying taxes, county supported gyms, etc. All essentially non-viable institutions subsidized either for the "benefit" of "the poor," or actually, "the middle class," such as the old Ys now refurbished for downtown businessmen.

It is a not-for-profit group like the YMCA which has a page, is not a for-profit like Gold's Gym, which has a page. It often has a waiting list (capped at 2,500 members). It doesn't need members particularly.

I am not a founder nor director of the club, nor have I even been nor ever expect to be; just an ordinary member. I am not trying to "get" members. With a cap, the last thing we need is more people signing up and not being able to join! But I do have a POV, clearly. I've been trying to avoid putting too much of myself into the article. Even so, one editor thought it was an ad!!! Student7 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but can you verify the information present in the article against a third-party reliable source? CloudNine 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unremarkable and as spam. I applaud Student 7's intentions, but this isn't the place. DGG 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an advert for a run of the mill gym club. So there's a waiting list!? Whether it is cheap or affordable, or run for a profit or not is irrelevant in the eyes of wikipedia, it's just not notable. Ohconfucius 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is written like an advertisement. Apart from this, I can't find any major achievements or incidents that are widely reported about this particular health club, and that makes it not notable and shouldn't be here.--Kylohk 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As spam, tagged as such. Whsitchy 14:39, 29 May 2007 (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.