Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association of Target Shooting Sports

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. Sandstein 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Target Shooting Sports

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I can find no evidence this working group's work achieved notability or completion, which means there's no TNT solution for this coat rack. There's no indication that the merger of the governing bodies went through, and no viable ATD target. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATSS was seen by many as a 'power-grab' exercise, devised and driven largely by one individual who was subsequently removed from a position where that person could continue having influence.

Some of those backing the proposal preferred to stay in the background, anonymous.

It was quite clear to me, and to very many shooters, that every "workshop" and report was thoroughly biassed, and less than meaningful. Some were seen as downright dishonest.

The arrangement with "Performance Matters" was dubious at best, and possibly worse.

By and large, the shooters of the UK , then and now, seem to feel that their core disciplines are not sufficiently compatible in what they exist to do, and how they are organised, to be suitable for outright amalgamation under one body, as was the ambition of the proponents of the NATSS project. Most notably, the CPSA (clay target shooting)was sceptical from the start, the more so as it was organised differently from the others, and of course because it was (by a margin) by membership and financial status the largest of the targetted bodies for absorption into NATSS. When CPSA announced it was suspending consideration of joining NATSS, the project as a whole became essentially non-viable (most notably financially of course), and withered away quickly thereafter, especially when NSRA soon after also expressed a disinclination to rush towards amalgamation.

That is NOT to say amalgamation is a 'dead duck'.

Doubtless there will be a few who still hanker after amalgamation along the NATSS lines.

The concept of amalgamation and forming a 'NATSS' of some sort was and is often likened to forcing the amalgmation of the national governing bodies of all ball games involving hitting a ball with some sort of implement, such as tennis, badminton, squash, lacrosse, hockey, cricket, table-tennis, and perhaps even ice-hockey and golf. The shooting disciplines are as diverse, which is of course the very reason they evolved into their current national governing bodies.

My own view is to leave the NATSS article in place for a while yet, as it is essentially the ONLY place where may be found a decent explanation of a project which then, and perhaps in the future, would completely change the organisation of the shooting sports, arguably not for the better so far as the grass-roots shooters are involved. 188.30.193.210 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP 188 for the insight. The only issue with that is we require secondary coverage to have an encyclopedia article, so if this is the only place the information exists, that might be challenging. Star Mississippi 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search was similarly unable to find significant coverage in sources independent of the relevant organizations, and I agree with the nom that no alternatives to deletion come to mind. If this "is essentially the ONLY place where may be found a decent explanation" of the project, then unfortunately we can't keep the page either: because our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize information that secondary sources have already collected, our guidelines discourage us from including articles about topics that haven't received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (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.