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) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inchgarth Community Centre[edit]

Inchgarth Community Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unsourced and orphaned article about a place of uncertain notability. No indication that it meets WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability asserted. No sources of note. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone explains what the attention of the celebrities is, and a very good reason as to why this makes it notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. Sebwite (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The comments above do not appear to be based on any search for sources. I had no difficulty finding such sources and have spent a few minutes improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. As this is the main community centre for the major city of Aberdeen, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Aberdeen. The subject of the article is verifiable but it is of local interest only judging by the very limited sources and should not be in a stand-alone article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aberdeen per WP:TOWN. Considering that all Google News results come from two local publications, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Evening Express, I don't think that the subject passes the notability requirements for a standalone article. — Rankiri (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aberdeen. This article isn't notable enough to stand on its own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article can't stand up on its own and I see no evidence that it's a large enough part of Aberdeen's cultural 'ethos' to warrant merging. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My recommendation to merge was mainly based on the following claims:

1. "Inchgarth Community Centre, on Aboyne Place, Garthdee, currently offers 157 classes to people of all ages and abilities."[1]
2. "Mr O'Connor is preparing to launch a campaign to save the centre, which boasts a huge array of facilities and a combined annual attendance of around 70,000."[2]
3. "BEST COMMUNITY CENTRE: INCHGARTH..."[3]

If that's not enough, delete would be my second choice. — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: clearly falls well into the Notability guideline at WP:N. Note that WP:TOWN is a "Proposed guideline": it is Not policy, and its higher reguirement -- that reliable sources must be of more than local interest -- does not reflect concensus. This is why simply slapping an acronym down in these debates is poor form, and discouraged. As it is, this topic is the single focus of several articles in reliable sources (large Newspapers). Is the coverage Significant? WP:N defines this as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I would say by this definition, yes. Therefore the topic is notable. If editors want to merge this in the course of regular editing on the topic, fine, but there is no mandate that they do so in community guidelines. T L Miles (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I point to WP:TOWN and WP:LOCAL to provide a reasonable background for my own view that, generally speaking, local interests with limited insular and no external coverage should not be seen as individually notable as they don't really satisfy the appropriate notability and verifiability requirements for standalone articles. I take your point about WP:TOWN not being a commonly accepted guideline—I should have remembered and mentioned that fact without simply referring you to the page—but as for "simply slapping acronyms", I believe I fully explained my reasoning in the subsequent sentence. The subject's coverage revolves around a couple of lease and renovation related incidents and other trivial announcements that all go back to 2002-2006. All that coverage essentially comes from a single local news source that may or may not be suitably impartial to pass WP:RS. If you cut down the unverified claims like "the centre was an old secondary school that was renovated in the 1980s.." and "...attracted attention of certain celebrities in the past that include: Annie Lennox, Andy Murray and Brian May"[4], the few basic facts offered by the local news coverage are way too limited to help move the page beyond its present two-sentence stub state. — Rankiri (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep but expand the focus or merge to Cults, Aberdeenshire (which appears to be the nearest more notable area of Aberdeen). I'm not certain there is enough that can be said about the community centre for it's own article, but Inchgarth is a historic area of Aberdeen that along with the community centre has a reservoir, reservoir and until ~1981 had a primary school. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry, not seeing the notability or sources here. Is it really that big of deal that a community has a centre? It should be shown that the centre itself is notable is some way but this doesn't see to do that. I'm open to a Heymann save or merge if there really is something to merge. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no standard of inclusion on Wikipedia in which a totally non-notable subject for which no sources exist (such as a common person or small business) can be mentioned in the article on the location where it is found. Sebwite (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's no the issue here. There certainly are sources for this but nothing to suggest that this center is notable. That doesn't mean it isn't notable just that presently we don't readily see anything that shows it is. With a single source the issue could sway. Not seeing that happen I'm inclined to delete. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 17 June 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.