Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calcutta Racket 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta Racket Club

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

This article has stood unsourced since 2006 (last 5 years) so it does not conform with WP:V, hence making it difficult to ascertain whether the subject is notable. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like it could be notable, as it claims to be one of the oldest rackets clubs in the world, but I was unable to find anything approaching a reliable source for this. Jujutacular ^talk 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - can be worked on. might take a while though. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book reviewed here has coverage of the club, and further confirmation of the foundation date can be seen here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage merely confirms it hosts events rather than coverage about the entity itself. fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, references of use and age exist. No reason to doubt its notability claim; lack of citations is a poor reason to delete. (as per 162. above) –SJ + 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable and lot of references and coverage available.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve with the references Shyamsunder and Phil Bridger speak of; it is clearly notable, if the claim of age can be verified, for that age alone; its current importance may be less so. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- found numerous sites containing good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbcaffiliate (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (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.