Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Libertarians of Towson


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

College Libertarians of Towson
It's not notable. Not the kind of thing you put in an encyclopedia- a random student organization that doesn't even sound like it's making an impact on campus. 199.72.97.65 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Delete
 * Delete: I hate to agree with Anons, but he's right. This sounds like badvertising through and through. Karmafist 02:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. An subsection in the Libertarian Party article about the college movement in general, and even providing links to some college clubs, would be fine, but this is pretty much not noteworthy at all. - Sensor 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Student organizations that exist on a single campus are normally not encyclopedic.  Note that the national College Libertarians could reasonably be the subject of an article, but no such article exists as of this writing. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * delete smacks of vanity. Sorry, guys, I'm one of you too. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment er.. I should say that I share your political belief. I don't know you all from adam. ;) Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn CLW 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable vanity and shameless self promotion Fsdfs 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Passionate Keep This article, although small in scope, is quite factual and informative. Specific Organizations DO make it in this encyclopedia, and such entries are extremely resourceful. It is not trivial, it has a local impact. It is noteworthy, for if one is not impacted locally, such an article like this is necessary to learn about it. The vanity and propaganda claims can be addressed through revision. It is also historical and archival, as well as pertinent research material. --Malecasta 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I would, however, agree that the Constitution in the article is a "source text," and it should probably be moved to wikisource. --Malecasta 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but this article is definitely NN. I mean, if the C.L. of T. had started the political career of America's first Libertarian president, that would be one thing.  But this group is really really trivial. I don't mean to belittle its accomplishments, but it's a small club in a small college for a very small political party. Again, delete. - Sensor 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Response I would agree you have a valid point. I think the charge, then, would be to show the impact and discussion about this organization, and I think substantial commentary, even if local, is enough to make the entry notable. If there is discussion and secondary work about this group, then that should be enough to reference it and make the topic available to people that would not be familiar with the topic. Instead of famous being the standard for noteworthy, this is my understanding of the criteria. So I guess it would be famous on a very small scale. This protects against arbitrary judgements of triviality and size. Keep, Revise --Malecasta 06:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice effort, Malecasta, but there is ample precedent that college groups are not retained around here unless they are exceptionally noteworthy. It is normally very easy for a single individual to found one and receive some local press coverage. Xoloz 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Works for me. If that is indeed the overwhelming standard, then no reason it should not go. Delete per Xoloz. --Malecasta 17:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. To say that the CLT isn’t making an impact on campus is an unfair characterization.  Perhaps the impact is relatively small, but it's definitely existent.  We have several events lined up, and we will be planning more next semester.  In fact, I just got through a planning meeting for the Marriage Equality event referenced on the article, which will be held on Valentine's Day next semester.  We're reserving an entire field on campus for this event; we're scheduling speakers; we're creating a petition to legalise gay marriage in Maryland just for this event. One can hardly say there's no impact.  As for the comments about the college being small, from what I’ve heard, this (i.e. Towson University) is the second largest college in Maryland.  I believe University of Maryland is the only one larger.  As for vanity, that's perhaps a fair claim, as I didn't bother creating any article for the other groups on campus.  But this is because I know more about the CLT and its history than I know of the other groups. Allixpeeke 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I totally agree with this, but it has been suggested that college organizations, by precedent, should not be published unless their impact is exceptionally noteworthy (see Xoloz). I personally disagree with this policy, if it does exist, and I see hundreds of reasons why it should be Kept and Revised. I am very weary of something being deleted because someone thinks it is insignifcant, and I've tried to give a correct interpretation of the Noteworthy policy above. I strongly believe if there is secondary discussion of any kind about the organization, no matter how small or local, it should be kept. This consensus, no matter how small, should ALWAYS override the arbritrary judgements of some, and even a majority, that the article is trivial and not important. Otherwise, a lot would not be in this encyclepida because of the prejudiced and provincial views of some (or most) people against many topics. The only consideration here that has been convincing to me is the Precedent of how the encyclopedia has handled these issues in the past. I think that's a fair standard to apply here, but I will modify this to say I do not believe the precedent is right and perhaps the precendent should be ignored because it is wrong and not in good spirit. I think people are concerned about vanity and advertising, and there is no reason that cannot be addressed through REVISION. I would hate to see this article go on account of "delete-hawking," deleting for the sake of the good of the encyclopedia on very simple grounds. This article, obviously, deserves a broader consideration. --Malecasta(talk) 03:57, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * Clarification Definately, the "upcoming events" section should go, go, go. I am not urging this page be kept for self-promotion. This should be a topic about this orgainization. This should not be the origanization's page. Surely they can get their own web space for that. --Malecasta(talk) 04:12, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed all self-promotion references, and I removed the Constitution because it can be found in an external link. I believe the vanity issues have been addressed. The article, as it appears now, is a factual entry about the Organization, which should probably be expanded upon to further demonstrate the topic's significance. Finally, the initial reason for deletion was that the page was "not noteworthy." Not being noteworthy is not a major criteria for deletion, and a factual topic about anything, should be signifiant. This article should be expanded to further show its significance and secondary discussion. Of course, I refer to the previous comments I have already made about deletion for not being noteworthy. I believe a factual entry that shows an organization of relevance and significance exists here, and it can be developed. I think the concerns in the reason for deletion have been addressed or greatly mitigated.Keep, Revise, Expand --Malecasta(talk) 04:33, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * Delete - no amount of expansion will make this entity significant. WIKI is not the place for listing every college's individual organizations.  Storm Rider 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though Importance is not an official policy, the Importance page does offer some guidlelines for revision for this topic. The problem with Importance and Notability is that no one has a definite sense of what these terms really are, so depending on who you are, you're right, NO amount of revision can make anything significant or notable. Because of this, these criteria alone make the topic a weak candidate for deletion. --Malecasta 22:39, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.