Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headstrong Club


 * 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. Further discussion can take place on the talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Headstrong Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable, all refs refer to club in connection with Thomas Paine being a member, notability is not inherited. The current iteration of the club (relaunched 200 years later) has no GNews or GHits that I could find from reliable or verifiable sources. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi GregJackP - Apologies, I'm very new here and am not sure of all the jargon. I am one of the current committee of the Headstrong Club and can assure you it exists :) However I completely understand the 'notability is not inherited' argument and agree. We shall have to do something notable soon and see if someone puts the page back up :) Matt (@mrmzholland)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmzholland (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (pending additional resources): I would be very, very hesitant to delete an article on an 18th century-era debating club with notable members.  No, notability is not inherited, but for God's sake, we really don't have enough on historical institutions anyway; having two notable members is strong evidence that other notability criteria could be there.  Debating clubs and societies were incredibly influential and important during the Enlightenment, and Wikipedia's current representation of them is beyond awful.  Looking at the category, practically everything we have is related to present-day debating clubs -- most of which will have less long-term notability than many of the 18th century ones.  As to whether this particular one is one of the notable ones, I'm not the expert -- so we should post this on relevant history noticeboards and hang a tag on it looking for additional work beyond stub-level.   We could also check in with User:Awadewit, certainly one of our local experts on the relevant era: I note that Mary Wollstonecraft is cited elsewhere as having some connection with this and similar clubs.  Note, I am referring to the 18th century club; not to the present-day incarnation.  Unless the present-day incarnation has achieved independent notability, then it would be a footnote on this entry -- that a new club started using the old one's name and attempting to fulfill the old one's mandate.  --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to name it clear that the article is about the historic club rather than the present one (which is altogether a different kettle of fish). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to renaming, but would submit that whether we should or not would be dependent on the notability of the modern incarnation. If there aren't two similarly-named items in Wikipedia, we don't need to fudge the title of the article -- historical researchers would likely look it up under its organizational name and expect to find it there. Just thoughts; WP:Name has more and I'm not as versed in the subject as I used to be. --Lquilter (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Restructure It feels like the problem here is that there is insufficient commentary on the historical club such that the article feels like an advert for the modern reincarnation. Maybe we could de-emphasise the modern iteration by adding a Modern Headstrong Club paragraph at the end in same way that the page on the Lunar Society of Birmingham does. --Slowlearner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 23 July 2012 (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.