Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the Oxford Union


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Oxford Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page is unsourced and by the very nature of its subject material can never be sufficiently sourced. Qu e ntin Smith 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suspect that most if not all can be sourced, e.g. a quick scan through Google Books confirmed Lord Alfred Milner (from 1876), Bryan Magee, John Beverley Nichols, John Buchan (from 1899).--Michig (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) There are also several books about the Union, and books such as the Alumni Oxonienses series which may well cover all of the earlier presidents. --Michig (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prominent and significant position, easily sourced, and held by many people who have gone on to achieve notability in their own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The point I am trying to make is that even if you went through each person and checked whether or not they were a president thro' a proper source, you would at very least only find out that they were a president and certainly not what term it was in - and even if you did this you would probably omit some that did not go on to achieve notability in their own right. So there is no way this list could possibly be complete and current. --Qu e ntin Smith 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm at a loss to see why you think this is a good reason to delete the article even if this were true (which, frankly, I doubt - I imagine it would be easy enough for someone based at Oxford to check who was president when). Which Wikipedia policy do you think you're following? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I imagine it would be easy enough for someone based at Oxford to check who was president when" - then by all means do so but I haven't seen any one make any effort to do so. "Which Wikipedia policy do you think you're following?" - As it stands this fails WP:BLP, for starters, which means there is an obligation to remove it. Also WP:NOR, because if you search for "List of presidents of the Oxford Union" on Google it shows only Wikipedia caches which shows that before this article was written there was no single list, at least on the internet; this article is at best synthesis, then, unless it was copied from a book, in which case, it firstly would be cited and secondly would come up in an internet search any way because the Oxford Union is old enough that such a list would be out of copyright by now. "Sorry, but I'm at a loss to see why you think this is a good reason to delete the article even if this were true" - because Wikipedia needs sources - it relies on them for two reasons. Firstly, suppose I'm researching Mr Blah. I come across this page that says, "Mr Blah was a president of the Oxford Union in Michaelmas 1997." But for the reasons given above, it would be nigh-on-impossible to confirm that exact date anywhere else, be it in a book or on the internet. So who do I cite for the project? Wikipedia? Secondly, suppose this time I am Mr Blah. What is to stop me putting an article in this list saying I was the president of the Oxford Union? This could allow people to make themselves false CVs. For these two reasons Wikipedia relies on being properly sourced. --Qu e ntin Smith 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your claim that it fails BLP is frankly laughable. Where do you get this sort of thing from? In what way is stating that someone was President of the Oxford Union likely to be challenged? It's an honour, not a libellous allegation! Then we have the common and ridiculous claim that it doesn't have Google hits, so it must be original research. Dear, oh dear! Google is not the only source out there. The internet is not the only source out there. In any case, I have just googled half a dozen presidents from the last forty years at random and the presidency of every one of them was confirmed by a reliable internet source. Then you appear to suggest that the content of all books that are out of copyright may be found on Google! Er, no. As for people using the information for projects or CVs, Wikipedia is not a definitive source and has never claimed to be. If it were we wouldn't let anyone edit whatever they chose. Wikipedia does indeed need proper sourcing, but it's an ongoing process and not being sourced is not a reason to delete non-sensitive material. Many of these articles were written before Wikipedia was particularly hot on sourcing. It's not an excuse for people to go around nominating them for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is easy to source. For example, starting at the top, the first entry may be confirmed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom provides no policy reason for deletion. This one just needs some attention.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. All these entries are potentially sourceable, many are notable in their own right and have articles, and there is no specific reason to challenge entries. Also the reasons for nominating thsi list are not good reasons. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:29, 9 July 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.