Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Law Society (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   merge to Cambridge University Students' Union. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University Law Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've searched for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources but I'm not finding anything so it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from Cambridge University. It was nominated for deletion way back in 2006 but none of the arguments for keeping the article demonstrated notability and the standards for inclusion have improved significantly since then. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) *

Delete - They haven't done anything.Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: No press releases or valid evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. This article fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck a duplicate !vote above. NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (soft delete): Having three entries in an external links section does not references make. It seems to me that an article with no references would be a prime candidate for a speedy. I would never want to be considered a "Deletionist" (I think it is called) because I feel an article should be on Wikipedia on merit of the policies and guidelines, of which notability is a prominent factor. Longevity is not a major reason for keep. One thing I am against is using "External links" (against policy and long consensus) to create an article and then "acting" like that is a reference or source. "IF" this article has information in an external links section that can be used in the article and referenced then do so or at least create a General reference section. If the article is not notable enough since 2006 to generate "some" interest, hanging around with multiple tags about references of which there are actually zero, then how notable is it? I didn't look at how long but one of the external links is even formatted wrong.
 * "What links here" has a list dominated by deletion entries. Michael Mustill, Baron Mustill (What an appropriate title name!) has an unreferenced link to this article, Rona Fairhead at least does have a reference. List of social activities at the University of Cambridge lists the article but would you believe the only reference there (at all other than external links) is only for one activity out of many. University of Surrey Students' Law Society (an actual referenced article being considered for Afd) only has a "See also" section back to here and Per Incuriam redirects here.
 * Logic: Over 8 1/2 years ago this article was kept (9 to 1) through Afd. Concerns were not noteworthy and "verifiable evidence for this assertion, like reports from the local or preferably national news". The only actual positive comments for keep was "Give the editors a chance to improve the article.", and "It is one of the oldest and largest societies from Cambridge University, and such a history should be recorded, acknowledged and appreciated!.", be the creator. Five editors chimed in with "keep and rewrite" (or "Per comments above") but the reasons were actually inadequate per policies and just a vote.
 * Working on 9 years later we have a 2nd Afd with the same issues. The creator who started the article because "Oxford Law Society pointed out their page to us. So we thought we would follow suit.", was a past President (WP:CONFLICT), and stated "I made it sound self-congratulatory because... it was my baby, right?". Surely"! an organization that has been around since 1800 would have some coverage per Wikipedia policies and guidelines for an article, There are reportedly 751 registered societies at Cambridge and many have articles. What makes this society stand out for a separate article on Wikipedia? Maybe it should just be a redirect to a section in Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge or if that prominent in a section of the Cambridge University article.


 * Conclusion: An article should not be kept by a "vote" because it is important, liked, or any of the various "opinions" given in the first Afd. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. This might not be popular but nonetheless correct and it really would not matter how many times we "relist" it or seek outside input. A bunch of editors wanting to keep an article "just because" becomes a local consensus which cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.


 * In view of this (my opinion) a soft delete, with instructions to to rectify valid deletion concerns if undeleted, maybe even following College and university article guidelines, would be proper. An alternative would be to merge the information "somewhere" and who would want to undertake that considering all the current comments? Maybe we can start a precedence for other "like articles"? Otr500 (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Cambridge University Students' Union. [According to the CUSU homepage  https://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/societies/directory/lawsoc/], the Law Society belongs to the CUSU and therefore I think it could better be a paragraph (or a phrase or two) in the CUSU article. It can't be a standalone as it does not satisfy the WP:GNG. Or Delete. AadaamS (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2014 (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.