Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruin democrats (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Sharp disagreement over this one, with the nominator switching to keep, but others maintaining strongly that deletion is appropriate. No clear agreement here. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruin democrats
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently a non notable political group doesn't qualify as a speedy deletion. Who knew, having no references or any people elected from your party made it enough to pass notability? If you can't understand what I mean, Delete. Non notable political party with no attempt to explain notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Strong keep, upon a review and several good points by PolarGeo I find this group notable. PBS mentions Bruin here...[] another newspaper [], [], [] []. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to "Hell in a Bucket" and all: Bruin Democrats is not a political party and does not claim to be. This article describes the largest club organization on a major university's campus, and therefore it is notable. Hundreds of active members, significant lobbying efforts, and a large number of former members in the US Congress and other sectors of the federal government indicate how important the group is to the political ecosphere. If some random song by some obscure artist is consider notable by wikipedia's standards, why not an active political organization as large as this one. I encourage improvement of this article for accuracy and objectivity, but strongly defend the right of this article to existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruin Democrats denotes it is a political organization. If it is not help me understand how it isn't....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a political organization (I want to clarify that it is not a party and does not need to prove its notability as such), why should it be deleted? Why did you nominate it for deletion? This article gives the general reader some basic background information on a notable group, just as an article on any other interest group, corporation, or political movement does the same without being nominated for deletion.--Truth Be Told 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Refer to comment number one. It is a non-notable party/group. It does nothing to explain much less prove how it meets wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single university are generally non-notable per WP:ORG. I don't see any independent reliable sources cited in this article to help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While there have been sources added to the article, I don't think they are significant enough to warrant changing my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am obviously reading different notability criteria to you. WP:CLUB is satisfied here because A) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. And B) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. The fact that the organisation is based at UCLA does not count because the scope of their activities is national. Polargeo (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point the way? I would reconsider if I saw something that came close to explaining it's notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is some third party press coverage, maybe not a lot but it is over a long period of time, Washington Week 2005 LA Times 2008, LA Times 1978 and LA Times 1979 and many more LA Times mentions from 1976 to present, Center Daily Times, Baltimore Sun Polargeo (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Okay maybe Washington Week is not fully third party and you have to pay to view the Center Daily Times article. Polargeo (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow that's a tough one. I'm going to sleep on it. I will also re look over the notability guidelines for club and organization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this rides on coverage in multiple articles in a major regional newspaper, with high circulation, over a long period of time. The previous AfD in 2006 was a joke (I would have loved to have been on wikipedia in those happier times). Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced it really meets the notability guidelines. That being said I think that we can keep it, contrary to my deletionist nature. It's enough of an arguement to keep it around and say that Wikipedia is bettered by a article that is on the fringe but still improved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Non-notable group. No claim to fame. No independent refs. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the LA Times is not an independent ref? Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I've now changed to strong delete. Show me a local paper to a university that doesn't make references to its university's various clubs at different times. And 15 mentions in the L.A. Times over 33 years? Once, on average, every other year? Hardly notable. I don't count L.A. Times as much of an independent source given that it's the local paper. Were any of these stories picked up by the Washington Post? New York Times? BBC? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True you have a valid point it is marginal but this only needs to pass WP:CLUB not "WP:The most famous student organisation in the world" Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Also the guidence says "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." And the LA Times independently verifies the longevity. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I will also add that the size of membership should be taken into account per the notability guidance I outline here. Polargeo (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per my arguments above Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done a search of the LA Times website and "Bruin Democrats" are mentioned 15 times, 1976 (1), 1978 (3), 1979 (2), 1980 (1), 1984 (1), 1988 (2), 2001 (2), 2006 (1), 2008 (2). Some of these articles detail the group's activities. The LA Times may be regional but it has the fourth largest distribution of all US newspapers, you cannot get much bigger. This consistent appearence in such a major newspaper over such a long period of time verifies not only notability but longevity of the group. Their activities are national in nature and so they pass WP:CLUB Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the nominator I had ot agre with Polar's view. The coverage isn't major but it has been consistent over the year. I think it is a fringe article but there should be no problems with it....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable.Jack007 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.