Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USTA Eastern

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. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USTA Eastern

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

One of the 17 regional branches of the United States Tennis Association. Article based mainly on primary sources. Does not warrant a separate article. Could be merged if deemed a keep. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [another regional USTA branch article, even more poorly sourced]:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the info is pretty much an organizational hierarchy that only belongs on a website. If anything all the 17 regional sites can be listed on the main article site with a simple link to it's webpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main parent article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The organization has its own history and its own programs, separate from the larger organization. It also has a number of historic figures in tennis and meets the Tennis and Notability guidelines. Geostory (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organization cannot inherit notability from John McEnroe or other players it has had. What we need is independent sources that make the case why we need a separate article for this branch of the USTA. The USTA is obviously notable. But that doesn't imply that USTA Eastern needs its own article.

A lot of the sources mentioned in this article are taken from the organization's website. The remaining ones often mention USTA rather then USTA Eastern. Why do you object to merging this article as a section into USTA ? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to a merge, except for the fact that the USTA article does not have any information about programs, as the USTA Eastern article does. Most of those could be merged into the USTA article, but a few are unique to USTA Eastern and should be retained because of their notability. Is that possible? Geostory (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands now cannot be merged into the USTA page... there is simply too much info. It says it is one of 17 such entities so we have to take into consideration that there will be 17 subsections to add to the main page. That is simply way to much stuff for one article. Now, board members and past presidents are not notable. The "Geographic Structure" is unique. Membership structure, other than maybe line one, is generic and can be cut... we don't need to know the fees for membership. The "organizational structure" may or may not be generic...I don't know how the other chapters work. Under "programs"... isn't this something that should only be on an official website? It's not encyclopedic at all and is mostly generic. I'm guess most of the 17 chapters do much the same thing and if some have a couple unique features that could be covered in a single paragraph. We could list all 17 in a table on the main page, link them to their proper websites, and leave room in the table for special items that are unique to that group. I realize this is a borderline issue but I feel this looks more like a pamphlet I get from Mormans when they come to my door in the evening. Informative yes, encyclopedic no. Now to play devils advocate, I was going to say there are bunches of chapters of the Elks Club or YMCA that don't merit or get their own space here... but I would be wrong as I see there is also YMCA of Greater New York. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Geostory. Yes, you can create a section in the USTA article with the purpose of covering regional branches and activities. Use it to mention the notable facts that are unique to each branch, and you will have improved the USTA article.

In support of your article, we can find cases where branches of big organizations have separate articles. For example you can find separate articles for each national Olympic committee, such as National Olympic Committee of Germany and National Olympic Committee of Albania. But it is more rare to find standalone articles for regional (as opposed to national) branches of organizations. There are exceptions when a regional branch satisfies GNG on its own merits. I think the current sources in this article are insufficient for that. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the internal structure of organisations is rarely notable. Most of the references seem to mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've pretty much kept to the rule that subnational branches of an organization are not notable, unless there's something exceptional: I think this articles is an illustration of why that;s a wise rule: there are no really distinctive activities, and most of it is just a promotional listing of officers and non-notable past preeidents. DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 13 December 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.