Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's College London Conservative Society


 * 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

King's College London Conservative Society

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Student societies are intrinsically non-notable, unless they possess some unique claim to fame. This one makes no such claim. Fails WP:NN, even though as a student I was a member.--Anthony.bradbury 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above. Nothing in the articles to assert their importance over any other student society. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete every college has those sorts of political societies, we can't have articles on all of them, only those with major media coverage. Wooyi 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, certainly no sources provided.  Eliminator JR  Talk  00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Orig., author is right. Major institution in contemporary and 20th c UK politics. The alumni make it N. Just undocumented, not undocumentable.DGG 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On that basis practically any University political society anywhere would be eligible because they're almost certain to have at least one alumnus who is notable. Surely it's the alumni who are notable, not the society by association? (There are exceptions to this for societies who are notable in their own right, obviously). Eliminator JR   Talk  07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that more than one is necessary, and there are. Perhaps I should clarify it as alums relevant to the society or organization. This is a political asociation, and the alums are the ones N as conservative politicians. DGG 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The claim to notability is not solely alumni, as clearly indicated by the positioning of the alumni list at the bottom of the page (and the fact that I've threatened to delete that section for being unsourced; unlike the rest of the article, which is entirely sourced).  Instead, its claim to notability is being the second-largest Conservative society in London and one of the largest societies at KCL, and hosting events with innumerable high-profile politicians (two weeks ago, Lord King; tomorrow night, Nicholas Soames; next week, Francis Maude).  There is very good precedent for keeping the article, in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats.  I will try to diversify the sources, but the lack of diverse sources is clearly not the problem, as proven by the precedent of the Cambridge societies. Bastin 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is diversification of sources, which needs improving. Note though, that there is little rule of precedence on Wikipedia per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; and if the Cambridge Society articles don't measure up, they should go as well.  Eliminator JR   Talk  14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't WAX, because those articles have survived AFDs. The argument against using precedence (outlined in WAX) is two-fold, but neither of them applies in this case.  First, it suggests that the other article may not have been put forward for nomination; this is not the case, as both of those articles have been nominated and found to be notable.  Second, it suggests that there may not be direct parallels across which to apply the precedent; this is not the case, as they are all large British university societies affiliated to major political parties.  Since neither rationale applies, it is sensible to take into consideration precedent, which is clearly in favour of keeping the article.Bastin 14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it still needs good secondary sources, which still haven't been provided. This society isn't on the same level as the Oxford University one.  Eliminator JR   Talk  19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article may not have excellent secondary citations but it is a work in progress and as the eociety grows then the number and breadth of these will grow. The President-elect for 2007/08 is already making plans to investigate the history of the society which is suspected to be at least of equal age as UCLCS if not older. This article should be allowed to remain so that further work may be done to improve the flaws which have been recognised above. Cm kcl


 * 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.