Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clubs and societies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology


 * 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. Consensus is the list has not established notability and only functions as a directory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

List of clubs and societies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:listcruft, doesn't appear encyclopedic to list these when all universities will have societies. Might be better to have a category of the articles which exist Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Very few if any of these clubs and societies are independently notable, and so this list clearly fails WP:DIRECTORY. I imagine that RMIT and/or its student union maintain a listing similar to this, which is where students and other interested readers should go. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep LISTCRUFT does not apply.  It is not an arbitrary esoteric list.  It lists entities providing a contextualised framework for social and common interest networking and activity in a specific real extant context.  DIRECTORY might apply but it is not listing contact details, and no white pages listing will provide such a complete list in the one place.  List articles in their own right do not need to be notable, they rarely are, and can be supporting articles to their main articles, which I suggest this does quite well.   I do not think we can imagine an alternative, it either exists or it does not - the references links I tried are all dead at the moment too.   I actually found it encyclopedically informative, not realising the richness of and depth of such entities available.   Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I can see there is only one link to a RMIT related article from this list. All these societies are listed at http://rmitlink.rmit.edu.au/Clubs/Search or www.su.rmit.edu.au/clubs/, which are probably more up to date then this article will ever be (WP:DIRECTORY might apply here). This list doesn't support a main article either, that would be the case if there was a Clubs and societies of RMIT. That article may be a better solution to have, with clubs being described and supported by reliable sources. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be persuading me a bit. Yes I agree Clubs and societies of RMIT would be good.  Changing my keep down to a weak one.   Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * List articles in their own right do not need to be notable. WP:N: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." There's typically an exception for navigational lists, but this is clear problem of WP:NOT. We need to make the case that it should be included via sources which would establish notability, not by what an editor says is important. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. We have lists that navigate between notable topics, and notable lists. What we'd need is for significant coverage of these as a group published in sources independent of the subject(s). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide nor a directory of social clubs, none of which are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2017 (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.