Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of Clubs (Whig 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

King of Clubs (Whig club)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I actually don't think this is necessary. However, the article is completely unsourced. This article would either need very good sources or a complete rewrite to justify its content. Elm-39 - T/C 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable club.  Sources are readily available (e.g. James Population Malthus: His Life and Times ISBN 0415381134 pp83-84, Penny cyclopaedia 1837 -- which calls it one of "the most successful literary clubs of modern times", Virgin Sydney Smith: A Biography ISBN 0002158906 -- containing information about this club on 7 different pages, although I can't see all the references because it's on limited preview in google books).  Article should be fixed by editing in preference to deletion, per WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are references, but there wasn't a reflist added so they were invisible. I've added one now. JulesH (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see the numbers, which was probably why I was so quick to click. I hoped this article wouldn't go down so quick. Even so, the sources still need to include the information given in this article, or they're useless; I assume they do (the article creator DID say this was a 5 year research project). Anyway, Keep this article now, close discussion. Elm-39 - T/C 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello. My information on the King of Clubs is based on a 5-year research project and unlikely to be available elsewhere. I am in the process of inputting references etc and it seems a shame to delete it without giving me, as a relative novice, a chance to make amends! Tell me what you require. Thankyou.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariakinnaird (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm assuming all the information you're working with is available in sources that are published (or at least available for public inspection)? See WP:V and WP:OR, two very important policies for wikipedia for an explanation of why this is critical. JulesH (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks for your help (above). I have added some references - I fully intended doing this and had no idea my article would be pounced upon so quickly ! All the information is taken from the sources given, available either at the Brit. Lib. or the Bodleian. Mariakinnaird (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is sourced and notability has been established for this notable historic club. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be speedily withdrawn from this AfD process. Article is criticised for being unnotable - see Jules H above; unsourced - see recent changes and JulesH notes; and needing a "complete rewrite" - obviously not true. There are some well written paragraphs. Please withdraw this proposal its wasting wiki editting time. We could be assisting this author instead of defending an article that is clearly worthy. Victuallers (talk) 18:51, 27 January 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.