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 delete. Essentially a copyvio of http://www.rccssc.ca/index.php/history-of-rccss-c. Why did nobody check previously? DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable chiropractic organization. Sources are from the org itself, and a Google search turned up very little to pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organization does have a royal charter with is notable recognition in itself. However I found a lot of close paraphrasing from the RCCSS web site here: Duplication Detector

Can you link to the information about royal charters conveying notability? I am having a difficult time finding reliable sources, independent of the chiro org itself, for this charter. Delta13C (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, the requirements can be found on the Privy Office web site here under the heading "Criteria for the Title "Royal". Blue Riband► 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Riband►. This information is helpful for understanding how and why any organization is granted a "royal" charter. I am still looking for information to verify that this is indeed true for the RCCSS and any WP policy whether such a designation conveys notability, per WP:GNG or any other. Delta13C (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please clarify your comment for me SwisterTwister? Do you mean that being given a royal charter is not enough to constitute notability? or do you mean that the available sources are not sufficient to show notability? or am I missing your point altogether? Thanks. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:6811:11F8:700D:ECAC (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to be shown how a royal charter conveys notability per WP policy. Delta13C (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (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.