Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds University Conservative Future


 * 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 - Harlsbottom's keep does not address notability problems - and the author advocated "keep" twice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Leeds University Conservative Future


Non notable chapter of national organisation. Ohconfucius 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Leeds University. Those chapters are routinely deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page is a useful source of information on what is supposed to be a useful source of information. [Edit: The organisation is clearly well known in its area.  All I see is someone on a deleting spree.] --Harlsbottom 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Huh??? Which policy/guideline/consensus is that? Ohconfucius 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a campus information service or a free webhost/marketing site Bwithh 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia) and this article appears to have been authored by six users. The subject organisation is clearly notable enough and there's enough to say to make an article. At what point does it stop being relevant? When it only applies to 10,000 people? 1,000? 100? There are no clear distinctions as to where we draw the line and I would like to see information on how many people are members of this branch. Its activities seem to merit mention (if we are to proceed on the basis that it is too small to be of importance then we could apply the same reasoning to many small towns), so an idea of how many people it is relevant to might be a way to go (membership size for example). But I don't believe this is a suitable candidate for deletion - Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia for all things and removing articles like this is unnecessary. Mogh 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is arguing that this is a single-editor article. Ohconfucius 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Precedents: Articles for deletion/Cal Berkeley Democrats ~ trialsanderrors 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or merge per Trials. Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia of all things" and should not be, as obscure, unwatched articles have lead to legal troubles in the past.  WP:N is a guideline, but it's a concensus guideline.  Xtifr tälk 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Individual chapters of national organizations need to show special notability to justify own article separate from national organization. Bwithh 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As an organisation LUCF is autonomous. It is a member of the National Conservative Future in name only and receives the scantiest of benefits from that nominative link.  As a constituent society of Leeds University Union it receives even less benefits, and therefore merging it with the University page would not only be incorrect but also insulting.  The society's recent record as described on the article speaks for itself and can be described as notable - probably not understandable to people not concerned with Leeds or the British University Political scene.  --Harlsbottom 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact is that per WP:ORG and WP:CORP, branches are not notable by definition, and the burden of proof for notability shifts to the editors of the article. It is not notable merely because it exists, or is autonomous in its financing : each McDonald's franchise is autonomous, but WP:CORP clearly excludes individual shops. Also, it is common practice to as the sitting MP of the constituency for endorsement with an Hon Presidency, and to ask prominent political figures to come to speak, so that these associations are also insufficient to establist notability. Ohconfucius 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This does not fail WP:ORG because WP:ORG is a *proposed* policy and as such is not binding. Since this organisation exists there is very little point in deleting a factual page about it. Wikipedia has the capacity to outgrow the limits of paper and bound volumes; why *shouldn't* it catalog the world? Nobody is forced to read the article or forced to acknowledge its presence but its there for anyone who wants to read it, and that really is the service we should be offering. I've yet to see a good argument as to why deleting it has any advantages over having it there for those who will read it. Mogh 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright then, if you prefer, it fails WP:CORP which amounts to pretty much the same thing. Oh and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dump for every kind of information about everything out there as per WP:NOT. Filling Wikipedia with every kind of info with a carte blanche/anything goes mindset undermines its status as a reputable encyclopedia. You can get your own page on a free webhost for that kind of thing. Bwithh 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a faulty and broad assumption that any article you don't like is simply there because the organisation in question cannot afford webspace. Clearly this organisation can, because their home site is mentioned in the links at the bottom; so let's dispense with that indefensible position. Wikipedia's status as a reputable encyclopedia is hardly challenged by covering factual articles in depth, and with a broader mandate than that which could fill a traditional encyclopedia. Just because you personally don't think the page is of interest doesn't mean that other users don't (and perhaps we need some facility for tracking how many users visit pages as a metric for whether they are valuable). This is a factual article written in a neutral tone about a real organisation. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why a factual, up-to-date and real-world relevant article requires deletion simply because one or two people don't think it's "worthy". I reiterate: nobody is forced to read it but it's self-evidently useful for those that do, and we should not be purging useful information or else what is the site for? And whilst I think on, can you site which part of WP:CORP it fails?Mogh 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP Bwithh 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I ran a Factiva database search for this society. Only hit - a single sentence mention in a letter to the editor in a regional newspaper (Yorkshire Evening Post) in Sept 2003.On google, brief vox pop opinion from society member along with other random local conservative society representatives in this bbc piece. Other than that - very few (6 spread over 3 websites) unique hits on google outside of wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. Aside from the encyclopedic reputation issue, another major reason for notability criteria is to safeguard wikipedia from being a free publicity space for anyone and anything out there. Wikipedia is a major target for spam and self-promotion efforts due to its prominence on search engines. Such efforts also benefit from Wikipedia's credibility as a source (while at the same time eroding this). Bwithh 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Bwithh, completly fails to assert any notabily at all. scope_creep 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 18:42, 20 November 2006 (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.