Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Social Ontology Group


 * 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 redirect to Tony Lawson. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Social Ontology Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "No independent references. Some group members have published books, but they're neither independent nor about this group. Group seems to be moribund, website doesn't appear to have been updated since 2014/2015 (lists books from that period as "Just published"... Like most research groups, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "The concern of the group not being current, and there not being adequate external sources, has been addressed through the addition of sources showing the wealth of current publications both by members of the group as well as other prominent researchers analysing its contributions." However, the references and sources added are either publications by purported members of this group or reactions to those publications (but not reactions directed to the group, just its individual members). Fact remains that this group appears to be ephemeral and is now moribund and that there are no independent sources about this group. Individual members may be notable (many of the stuff presented here as sources are also used in the bio of Tony Lawson), but notability is not inherited. Taken together, this fails WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep notable long running study group at Cambridge University involving numerous notable people. What is not notable here? If the group has gone dormant, all the more notable and less promotional. We are not a directory of active groups, and we don't delete pages because a subject is no longer active. The nom first gutted the page before seeking deletion. IF this page should not exist, it should be merged to some subpage of Cambridge University but since that is such a large topic, this makes a reasonable WP:SPINOUT Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a single source about the group. My comment about the group being moribund just serves to show that this was an ephemeral phenomenon, that didn't leave much of a trace in WP:RS. (Of course being moribund does not disqualify it, but neither does this make it "all the more notable", that's ridiculous. And indeed, we're not a directory of active groups, nor are we a directory of groups that existed for a while and then disappeared without much trace). As for "gutting" the article before nominating it, have a second look. 1/ I removed a lot of unnecessary parameters from references. 2/ I removed a section of "notable speakers", which was only sourced to the group's own website and is just so much promotional name dropping, not contributing anything to notability (I also note that the lecture series predates the group by about 12 years, so the relevance of all this for the group is debatable). (This was re-added today). 3/ The publications were all listed in a section of the article, and added once more as their own "references". I reorganized that as is usual in articles on academics or institutions, listing the publications in their own section. Of course, a reference showing that these are, in fact, results of the work of the group and not of its individual members which they would have produced with or without the group anyway, would be very welcome. In short, the only information that I removed was the promotional name-dropping. If that is "gutting the article", then I admit to being guilty. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - as Randykitty has pointed out, there is no significant coverage of the group itself, just individual members. There are several passing mentions of the group in various scholarly acknowledgement sections and the like, but I can't find any significant coverage of the group and its impacts. There doesn't seem to be much material worth merging into a separate social ontology article (currently a redirect to Structure and agency), which is the other alternative I would consider. I do want to note however that notability is not temporary, and whether the group is defunct or not is not a deciding factor. MarginalCost (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tony Lawson, where it is mentioned. Cambridge Social Ontology Group is a center within a university and Cambridge Social Ontology could be considered a school of thought. But I haven't been able to find any significant secondary sourcing about CSOG itself, just primary interviews and position papers. Without secondary reliable sources, there isn't a basis for an article. However, CSOG is real enough, is a plausible search term, and seems closely identified with Tony Lawson. Hence redirect seem the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It's a reasonable search term, but I don't see any case for notability (linking because Legacypac has apparently forgotten what it means!) Which is not surprising because these kind of groups come and go all the time. Tony Lawson seems like a good target. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tony Lawson per the two !votes above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2018 (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.