Deletion of Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club

Comment: there is coverage about an accident involving the club http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Derbyshire+and+Lancashire+Gliding+Club&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a but nothing indepth about the club like its history to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: The standard is  I believe, and it fails on both criterea listed there, unless there are some sources I couldn't find
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CLUB)

Comment: both per Nimbus' comments and my own belief that the umpteen thousand various definitions of notability are becoming more and more of a club with which to beat worthy articles, often simply because people |don't like them. Wikipedia is |not paper, therefore I fail to comprehend why so many things which are |verifiable are smacked with a "not |notable" argument. Is Wikipedia running out of space? I doubt it. So why ''not'' cover subjects like these, as long as they can be verified using secondary sources and have some claim to notability in any for beyond |existing? AfD should be a case where the onus should be on those seeking deletion to prove why an article should ''not'' be in Wikipedia, not on those seeking to keep it to prove why it ''should''. It seems to be the latter way, though, and that saddens me. /Rambling
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:V||WP:N||WP:ITEXISTS)