Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Presidents of Oxford University Conservative Association


 * 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   keep. A primary source is sufficient for verification in a case such as this, so the rationale for deletion has been addressed. Shimeru (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Former Presidents of Oxford University Conservative Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails verifiability policy, has been tagged so since April 2009 (13 Months). Not even listed on the Association's own website. Codf1977 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree - the article (which was moved from the main Oxford University Conservative Association article for reasons of space) is filled with notable personalities, including William Hague, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Heath, Daniel Hannan, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt, Nick Robinson, Dominic Grieve, Julian Brazier, Nigel Waterson, Jonathan Aitken, Alan Haselhurst, William Rees-Mogg, Julian Amery, Quintin Hogg, etc, etc - many, many cabinet ministers and MPs. It adds much-needed context, because so many of their own wikipedia entries mention their OUCA Presidency, and this makes some sense of all the references by putting them in perspective, and showing who was a contemporary of whom.


 * Agreed there was no source given - but I've actually found one. The official 1995 history of OUCA has lists all of them for 1924-1995, so I have happily inserted the reference for that. Wikipedia's main OUCA article has been going since 2005, so the regularly-updated OUCA website has been the source since 2005.


 * So we have sources for 1924-1995 and 2005-present, and if anyone wishes to contest the order of the names of past presidents for 1995-2005 (which I can't exactly see being a controversial point), then they're welcome to!


 * I would also politely direct you to List of Presidents of the Oxford Union for a precedent of a similar article. While this list has fewer links to notable people (since it only starts in 1924, while the other stretches back to 1823), it has a similar number of links for the period covered, and seems a legitimate way to cut down the size of the already-long main article on OUCA.
 * Politico234 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What part of the nom do you disagree with? - The fact that it filled as you put it "with notable personalities" is not the issue here it is the verifiability of the page that is in question, and has been for over a year. The source you give is clearly self-published, do you have anything else and what about the period post 1995 ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The information is a reasonable appendix to the main article and adequately supported by the histories which exist, as well as the numerous citations available for particular individuals. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is missing any verification post 1995 and pre 1995 there is only a self-published primary one. Codf1977 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Verification would be swell. Retention harms no one or nothing. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem being, one of WP polices is that all content should be verifiable so yes it DOES harm if there is not Verification. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verification is required if entries are challenged. I see no reason to challenge any of the entries as the self-published source is more likely to be accurate than other sources. Why would they get it wrong? As many of the people concerned are notable enough for their own articles, putting them in the context of a full list is valuable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well by creating this AfD aren't I not challenging it? We know at least one mistake has been made in the list (see here) so how can we be sure that the rest of the list is correct ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then remove the ones that are challenged and make it clear that the rest are "according to the Oxford University Conservative Association". The change you linked to is not sourced either. Do we know that it was wrong? It is not a reason to delete the whole article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying which version was correct with the dif I posted, but either one or both are wrong. When I created the AfD, I could not find any source for any of the article (even the Associations own website does not have this list), it had been tagged for 13 months, so there was a reason to propose it be deleted, even since I started this AfD there is still 15 Years of un-sourced items. Codf1977 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 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.