Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill College Junior Common Room (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   redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge. The sources still do not establish that the JCR is notable; either they are primary or they do not mention the subject. Allowing for the merger of any useful content. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill College Junior Common Room
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After closing this article's first AfD as a "delete", I was contacted by the author who indicated there were more sources available for the article. I restored the article so they could add the sources. This is a procedural nomination to see if consensus has changed based on the new sources in the article. I have no recommendation as to the outcome of the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possible redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge). The Independent source does not talk about the JCR. The compassyouth blog source makes a passing reference to the sixth reform act, but no mention of the JCR. The Times reference is the best in that is does mention the JCR, but only in passing in an obituary on Dick Tizard, not good enough to establish notability. The Hansard reference doesn't mention the JCR either, and the remaining sources are from it's own website. Searching does not reveal any extensive coverage by secondary sources, and a google scholar search comes up with nothing. Though the 1969 act is very notable, the JCR's involvement is discussed on the page for the act itself, and there is not enough to establish notability for the JCR itself. Quantpole (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge (and possibly add a link from there to Representation of the People Act 1969, I don't know). Quantpole gives a good summary of the sources: none of the third-party sources give significant coverage (ie, more than a line or so) of the organisation itself. I think there's definitely enough to justify some mention of the JCR's role at Representation of the People Act 1969, but not in its own article. The author, WikiWebbie, says here "This is the main organisation which brought about one of the most major pieces of legislative change in the UK in the 20th century. How is that not notable?" The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making that decision directly: per Notability we rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on. Since the best we can find there is a mention in passing in an obituary, the JCR doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. As the author of the article, I am obviously going to be biased, but I believe it warrants its own page for a number fo reasons.  For anybody who is not sure, I should specify that the Junior Common Room is not a literal room, but a students' unions.  In general, students' unions serve a large number of people.  They often do not become notable for one thing, but for being a large organisation over a long period of time.  A google search (as of 22/04/09) gives 2,080 hits for "Churchill JCR", shich signifies this.  Over the 50 years of existence, the JCR has had around 8,000 members.  There are many articles on Wikipedia which describe a hamlet in which 5 people lve.  This has affected the lives of thousands of people.
 * In addition to its notability as an ordinary students' union, Churchill JCR led the NUS to push for the Representation of the People Act 1969. the Act itself lowered the voting age across the whole country, so has affected most of the population of the UK!  NUS is mentioned several times in Hansard and the other reference shows that it was the JCR that led the NUS.  Without Churchill JCR, the NUS would not have had a stance and the issue would not have received parliamentary consideration.  Given that this was 40 years ago, it is not surprising that this is not covered much by the internet which did not exist at the time.  Instead, it was featured in the newspapers at the time and so is hard to reference in this article.  There are huge amounts of documentation in the Churchill Archives Centre such as the communication between the JCR, the NUS, the Government and the High Court, right alongside the papers of Churchill and Thatcher.  Unfortunately it is very hard (especially at a time of my exams) for me to be able to scan in the files and put them online as evidence within the next few days.  If you have any doubts about the notability, please contact the Churchill Archives Centre and ask for their opinion first.
 * There are many students' unions listed on Wikipedia, which are nowhere near as notable as Churchill JCR. See UFV_Student_Union_Society for example and for the large number of student unions, see .  All college boat clubs also have their own pages.  Churchill JCR is older than the boat club, has many more members, has a larger influence on college life and is far more notable.  To delete this page, would be to imply that nearly all students unions should be deleted off Wikipedia.  It would be ridiculous to keep the 30 boat club pages (e.g.New Hall Boat Club) and not keep the page of the student union which has affected the lives of tens of millions of people.
 * I hope this clarifies things. I'm happy to reply to any questions.  WikiWebbie (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)/
 * With regards to student unions, they are not inherently notable (see UNIGUIDE). Please note the information regarding coverage in secondary sources. Also, just because other articles exist with dubious notability, does not mean that gives a right of existence to an article with slighlty better notability (see WP:OSE). In terms of Churchill JCR, the 1969 act does give additional reasons for inclusion. However, we still have to give secondary sources. At the moment the problem is that it's hard to comment without knowing what the sources are. Also, if the JCR really is notable due to their involvement in an act from 40 years ao, I would have thought there would be secondary sources detailing the story. Letters and so on between the JCR and NUS do not prove notability, as they are not secondary sources (in my understanding). Sources should also be mainly about the article, not a passing mention. For instance, there would no doubt be lots of coverage of the 1969 act from newspapers at the time, but how many of these are about the JCR itself, as opposed to the Act? Quantpole (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a conflict of interest from WikiWebbie, as the user identifies themself as being a member of the organisation. However I have also noticed that there is a similarity between the username and the current president of the organisation. I think this could be a potential COI problem per Coi. Quantpole (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that I have a COI because I have been mandated as a representative of the JCR to speak on behalf of the students annoyed at this decision. A COI is separate from the notability of this article, however.
 * It sounds a bit weird that people have mandated you to come on here to be honest! A COI can be a problem because it means you may not be able to assess the notability or otherwise of an article neutrally. It is something that I imagine may be taken into consideration when the closing admin reviews the discussion, but so long as you make your case in accordance with wikipedia guidelines then it shouldn't be a problem. Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - On behalf of sociality, who posted their comments in the wrong place, see Talk:Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room.
 * In response to sociality's points on the Talk page, I have heard about the Varsity page and that is certainly a secondary source as some have asked for. The 50th edition of Varsity in 1981 identified the campaign as one of the top 5 most significant news stories for Cambridge University.  In response to the COI identified earlier, I have checked that sociality is not a student here, so the same COI does not apply.  I feel that at the very least we should give sociality a week to receive a reply from them.WikiWebbie (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck through the vote. I think it's fine to refer to these other points posted somewhere else, but I don't think you can vote on their behalf (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I studied the original before tentative removal and thought it added some useful history. I know the poster and his credentials in this regard seem impeccable.  Quibbles seem to have been addressed in subsequent talk, my vote is to restore the page with whatever clarifications and move on, why not? Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner  —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Do Not Delete I've reinstated the vote on behalf of Kirby Urner (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Sociality  —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete University wide student organizations can be notable, but not those for individual colleges like this one. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are straight away saying that it can't be notable, but ignoring the Representation of the People Act completely. The article also now has a secondary source, so meets the notability requirements in the guidelines. WikiWebbie (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read Rs. Quantpole (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Secondary Source - I have uploaded the secondary source you require onto our website here: http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3591.msg9349;topicseen#new.  This details the correspondance between the Home Secretary and Ian Benson, President at the time.  It also shows the newspaper article, which is a secondary source.  I will reference it on the article soon.  WikiWebbie (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this effort WikiWebbie (I appreciate you must be busy as Easter Term begins). The trouble is neither the letter nor the Times article make any mention of the role of the JCR specifically: in the former case we have no indication that Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President rather than just as a concerned student, and in the latter the JCR or College is not mentioned at all. So this source is useful for information about the event, but not for establishing the need for an article on the JCR itself. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, the letters are primary sources, not secondary. if someone were to write a book or paper that is deemed a reliable source, referencing the correspondance, then it would be a secondary source. Quantpole (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I am a scientist, not a historian, but my understanding was that a secondary source was something writing about the event, which is the case for this Times article. If you want anything else, then ask, but please give me time to find it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Times article is secondary but makes no mention of the JCR. The letter is primary. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"*Do Not Delete 24.4.203.234 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President, and the costs of the Churchill Students were met from Legal Aid and the [] National Union of Students (as this was a test case for all students in the UK)"
 * — 24.4.203.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete No significant third-party coverage. Most of the sources in the article are either self-published (or from Churchill college's own website), or are other things and don't really mention this organization (for example, the various obituaries).  Notability requirement not met. This article might be more appropriate on Churchill College's own wiki, but the organization doesn't appear to be notable outside that institution. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have a COI, but I really can't see how this isn't notable. Everybody I have spoken is very surprised by this and hence why I have been desperately taking time away from my exams to find these sources for you.  It is most definately notable outside of Cambridge and has affected the lives of tens of millions of people who were given the right to vote at an earlier time.  I guess that most people involved in this discussion have benefitted from the actions of the JCR.  It meets the notability requirements that have been specified.  It was written about heavily in the newspapers at the time and has featured in the Times obituary in the past few years.  I have provided tons of primary sources and loads of secondary sources as you require.  Please can you specify which line of the notability requirements it does not meet.  WikiWebbie (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The part of WP:Notability it fails to meet is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some of the sources you've provided are reliable sources independent of the JCR, such as the Times obituary. Some of the sources give significant coverage, such as the JCR's own page. But none of them is both: we don't have a single independent newspaper article, book or the like which actually covers the JCR rather than just mentioning it passing. That is what you'd need to provide. (And sources that mention the event but not the JCR are not enough, any more than newspaper articles about an influential court case justify Wikipedia pages about the judges and lawyers involved.)
 * Wikipedia does not judge notability on having effected millions of people: there are plenty of unsung legislators, judges and activists who've done that. Those with significant coverage in secondary sources get articles; those without don't. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @WikiWebbie: like someone said above, what's notable is Representation of the People Act 1969. That's the article that needs to be written. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"*Do Not Delete Sociality (talk)sociality is working hard to supply (a) copies of contemporary newspaper articles surrounding the JCR's campaign (b) confirmation from Varsity - a reliable source that is independent of the JCR that not only did it run the story on the JCR's campaign on its front pages in 1970, but reran the JCR victory front page in 1997 as one of only 5 notable front pages since 1947 and (c) legal citations to an earlier Cambridge Students Appeal on this issue which followed the passing of the 19th Century Second Reform Act. The Court of Appeal alluded to the defeated earlier attempt by Cambridge students when it overturned that precedent in 1970. The 1970 Court of Appeal was independent of the JCR. Unlike books and articles and similar secondary sources the Court's findings are primary. Surely Wiki editors also need to take account of a substantive argument that is in the public domain such as the case marshalled by the JCR, presented by its Counsel, Leonard Bromley QC and recorded in Rickett's et al vs Town Clerk of Cambridge (High Court Ref to follow). Or does due process not apply here? "* Do Not Delete Sociality (talk){struck second vote Quantpole (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC))* If this article is deleted the information below that is publically available in the College Archives (and lexis-nexis) will not have  been collated for publication under this rubric.  Quantpole and Jimmy Wales are of course free to visit the Churchill College Archives if they wish to read about a subject such as the 6th Reform Act more generally. The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources. If this is good enough for BBC editorial policy surely its good enough for the Welsh Volunteers.
 * Just a question, but if all this information available, why is it not being used to make Representation of the People Act 1969 a better article? Also, there is no problem if information isn't immediately available. If an article gets deleted, you can always add it again, provided that it isn't the same as the previous article (otherwise it may be speedy deleted). In other words, if the article gets deleted now (though I wouldn't want to predict the outcome), there's nothing to stop it being created again if/when better sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference for 19th century case. contained in the Court of Appeal judgement: is Tanner v Carter 1885 16 Q.B.D. 231, D.C. "the cases of Oxford and Cambridge students under the Act of 1867"

In the Court of Appeal hearing held on May 12 1970, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, said:

"There is one case which much influenced the judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court): It is Tanner v. Carter (1885) 16. QBD.231, when it was held that "Students in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who occupy room in their colleges under regulations which do not allow them to reside in or visit their rooms during the vacations withouth the express permission of the college authorities, are not entitled...to be regarded as voters....

"The judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court) treated that case as establishing this general principle: A student has not the right to be on the register unless he has the right to occupy his rooms at all times throughout the year......

"....On this account the judges held that the students were not resident.........

"I think the judges were in error in placing so much weight on Tanner v Carter. That case was decided under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which said that in order to qualify a man had to have been "during the whole of the preceding 12 calendar months...an inhabitant occupier, as owner or tenant, of any dwelling house within the borough." Tanner v. Carter was rightly decided under that statute. It has no application whatever to the present statute in which there is no qualifying period but only a qualifying date, namely one day in a year, October 10."

" I reject altogether the test of whether the students had a right to their rooms throughout the year. I prefer to go by the ordinary meaning of the word "resident". I follow Viscount Cave in Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1928, where he said: 'the word "reside" is a familiar English word and is defined in the OED as meaning "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place."

He goes on to apply various tests as to whether a person may properly be said to be "resident".

Ending with the sentence

"I would, therefore, allow these appeals and hold that these young men are entitled to be on the electoral register."

The other Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justice Karminski and Lord Justice Widgery, also refer to Tanner v Carter, noting they agree with Lord Denning's view.

Newspaper references were given to the JCR Campaign in: Varsity: 28 Feb 1970 "Court ends student votes - for now." in which Brian Eads writes "student spokesman Ian Benson of Churchill was not disappointed by the decision "because we couldn't have expected a county court decision to go any other way." .. Both Ian Benson and his solicitor feel that success is more likely before an Appeal Court. "It would have a free hand," said Benson, whereas he feels that "stupid precedents .. and ambigious law" had led to the case's dismissal." There is at present no clear guidance from the Law. Students and Bristol and Oxford, in addition to Cambridge have been refused the right to vote in these towns, whiles students at East Anglia have been successful in their bid for registration. It seems that if the appeal which is being considered (Ed Sociality by Churchill JCR) meets with success in a higher court it could establish an important legal precedent." Varsity: 19 May 1970. "Students Win Vote." in which Keith Baird writes a lead story which included the words "Student representation has come of age. Eight thousand undergraduates will be able to vote in the Cambridge Parliamentary Constituency as a result of a Court of Appeal decision last week. In a test case by Hugh Ricketts (Churchill) the Court reversed the ruling at Cambridge County Court last February affirming the refusal of the electoral registrar to include undergraduates. Ricketts was put forward as a representative case among a group of student dissenters. He received legal aid from the state to finance his appeal. He said, "I am very pleased indeed and it was all very worth while."..... Says Ian Benson (Churchill) one of he organisers of the voting campaign, --Sociality (Emphasis talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)"You can defeat bureaucracy if you try hard enough."

The Guardian: Feb 23 1970 "Confusion over student votes," in which is written: "Mr Ian Benson, aged 21, president of the Junior Common Room at Churchill College, said last night: "The case could set important precedents for students all over the country....." The Times:   May 12 1970 Law Report section "Students want to vote in university towns" Cambridge Evening News: May 12 1970 "Student franchise: Judges sit in appeals";   May 13 1970 "Students to Sway the City Vote?" May 16, "New Force in City Voting" There are many other cuttings from National Press, including: a)"Students Can Vote where they read Judges Rule" b) "Students win the voting argument." which includes the words "Mr Jack Straw, president of the National Union of Students which sponsored yesterday's appeals, said last night that student votes would be much more noticeable in local elections - but parliamentary seats in university or college towns could also be affected."


 * I've got no idea what you mean by you first paragraph. In respect of the rest, you still have not shown how Churchill College JCR is notable. The whole bit you quoted does not mention the JCR at all, and I'm not sure what your intention in posting it is. Sorry. Quantpole (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"* Do Not Delete Sociality —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC).   {struck third vote Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}

The substantive aspects in the first paragraph are:

1) Rubric means ``heading on a document, statement of purpose or function, category : eg party policies on matters falling under the rubric of law and order (source Apple OSX Dictionary v202). In this case the rubric is ``http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room

2) In this discussion the claim has been made that "Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making the (notability) decision directly they rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on." This suggests that wikipedia editors might usefully be guided by the best practice definition of media editorial policy.

3) Editorial Policy means a statement of values and standards. The BBC's are at http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/

The relevant paragraphs from the BBC guidelines are we must ensure that when a product, service or organisation is named in a news report or factual content it is clearly editorially justified. (page Producers Guidelines, page 120)

And, before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that:

• material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation; and

• anyone whose omission could be unfair to an individual or organisation has been offered an opportunity to contribute. (page 184, Producers Guidelines, Ofcom Broadcasting Code)

4) If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC.

5) Material facts in this instance mean the funding, selection and promotion of 13 test cases taken to the Court of Appeal. These individuals were selected by Churchill JCR to go forward in a test case as clients of Leonard Bromley QC. The Appeal is known as Ricketts vs Electoral Registration Officer of Cambridge, Queen's Bench Division, May 17, 1970. (No.104 - CCA - 1970) Organisations per se have no standing in Court in matters of electoral rights - the only way in which the students' case could be heard was by means of individual appeals. This meant that the students had a considerable financial risk. That is why they chose to coordinate their work through Churchill JCR. The JCR officers raised funds on their behalf, instructed Counsel and were accountable to the students collectively for their action.

The Master of the Rolls noted in his finding that Another important fact found was that in Churchill College the undergraduate members might without permission spend time in their rooms during university term but that during the vacation they had to get the permission of their tutors or other college authority if they wished to occupy their rooms, though such permission was readily granted if the tutor was satisfied that the undergraduate required it to be near the library or laboratories or in any way to further his studies; but that it was important that permission might be refused if thought proper.

The Court found that these individuals, selected by the JCR's officers, were indeed representative of all the students of the UK. They concurred by accepting the remaining appeals without further hearing (QBD No.15 - CCA - 1970). In all 29 student appeals were upheld. These included 16 Bristol University students whose case was heard alongside Churchill JCR's by the Court, as Fox vs Stirk and Bristol. The Bristol case arose when Mr Peter Stirk, Conservative Agent for Bristol North West, challenged the right of Julian Fox a student at Churchill Hall, Bristol University to be on the electoral register.

6) We hope that this explains what we meant by our first paragraph. That is, why the Master of the Rolls mentions Churchill College -- but not its JCR, and why his finding in support of Churchill JCR's campaign warrants this entry being retained as submitted by Churchill's JCR President (2008-9).


 * Sociality said "If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC." The BBC exists to report newsand Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia; as such we have a different standard for inclusion. The bottom line remains that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is laid out at the notability guideline, and requires significant coverage of the JCR in third-party sources. A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant. If any of the other newspaper articles you mention does contain significant coverage of the JCR then feel free to provide us with copies: but so far no-one has produced a third-party source which mentions it more than in passing. Until they do, everything else is irrelevant.


 * Also, please sign your posts at the end rather than the beginning, as it makes conversation easier to follow. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources." No, I don't think it is. The relevant debate is over WP:N as I said above. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia has many rules. According to WP:COMMON (which qualifies WP:N), it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
 * According to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
 * According to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.

[edit]
 * I'm afraid I fail to see your point, Sociality. By citing WP:COMMON, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND are you suggesting that my request for sources somehow violates the spirit of WP:N, defies common sense, or is not aimed at improving the encyclopedia? If so why? Simply quoting policies is rarely as useful as explaining how they are relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * New Source - Here's a new source from Churchill Archives Centre - http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3591.0;attach=274;image. I believe this is a secondary source as has been requested.  The article therefore meets the strict notability rules as well as the common sense rules.  WikiWebbie (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I disagree, WikiWebbie. Sociality quoted from this article above, and I replied "A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant." This article is about the legal challenges which led to the change in law: notability could be established by an article about the JCR, as I have said previously. A one-line quote from someone named as the president of the JCR is not significant coverage of the JCR. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked for coverage in newspapers. National newspapers like this rarely write an article just about an organisation.  Newspapers express news and write about the things these organisations do.  This article talks about what Churchill JCR has done.  By your logic, nearly all Wikipedia pages should be deleted. WikiWebbie (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, perhaps I was slightly unclear. The point is not that the article is about "an action of the JCR" instead of "the JCR"; the article is about an event which it doesn't really connect to the JCR at all, except to give us a short quote from its president. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't think you have a point. The other references clearly show that Churchill JCR was the main player.  There were no other student unions it could have been.  The Hansard records clearly point to the NUS.  The only NUS-affiliated body in Churchill was the JCR, but I realise that if you are not from Cambridge, you may not understand that.


 * This whole argument seems to be extremely nit-picking. It is common sense that this organisation should have a page.  I urge you to step back from the endless arguments on definitions and see that.  I am unable to continue responding to your queries as I have exams very soon.  'Neutrals' who contribute to AfDs are by definition interested in deletion.  To those people whose sole aim is to delete stuff, please just admit it that every question you have asked has been answered.  I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was hoping to contribute a lot, but now I just feel disappointed by the system.  I wish I had time to give you complete copies of all sources from the Archive Centre.  If you wish to reopen this discussion in July, I can sort that for you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect This particular Student Union seems to meet the the criteria for inclusion within the Churchill College article and would be simpler to include within that article to improve it. There's no reason we can't redirect it. The list of previous presidents takes up almost half the article space. Short version: keep the info (mostly) and just redirect it. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:32, 1 May 2009 (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.