Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of elections for Rector of the University of Glasgow


 * 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   Redirect to Rector of the University of Glasgow. Anyone wanting to merge anything useful is free to do so, the history of these pages is till available. Any revival any of these pages should go through DRV preferably. Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

List of elections for Rector of the University of Glasgow

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

List and associated articles fail notability and are all unencyclopedic. Any information that needs to be preserved should be merged into Rector of the University of Glasgow. Note that most of the articles consist of nothing more than "There was an election for Rector of the University of Glasgow in year. The winner was name."

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable and unencyclopedic:

TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge But I suspect the point of these articles is to present the elections as an indication of student sentiment in the UK generally. This is not said explicitly in the articles, though perhaps sources could actually be found for it. I am not too happy with the lack of sourcing of the main article either--someone with closer knowledge of UK universities and politics should rework this material carefully. DGG (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do we want Wikipedia to become an archive for the rectorial election records of random universities? (rhetorical question) VasileGaburici (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a general article about the "Rectorship" or the University. Than use as a category for notable Rectors. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the information that was used to build these one-off articles is already included in the primary Rector of the University of Glasgow article. These individual ones by year are completely redundant. I say kill. Keithh (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. As User:DGG says, these elections, and the candidates supported by different student groups, are indicative of student political sentiment at the time, in a similar way to the King and Country debate. John Buchan makes a reference to the rivalries between the supporters of Conservative and Liberal candidates in a Glasgow Rectorial election in his 1930 novel Castle Gay. However, details on all these elections would be more useful in a single article. Opera hat (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * limited details, that is :) DGG (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. The 1996/1999/2001 articles are useful because they say which student groups supported which candidate and that sort of thing. Most of the other articles don't even give the names of any of the other candidates, let alone information on their election campaigns. Opera hat (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, carefully - to preserve the information. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. This "information" is not encyclopedic, and the winners are covered in Rector of the University of Glasgow. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but a few of the delete comments note that the content's already at Rector of the University of Glasgow, so how about we just redirect there? Cheers.  lifebaka++ 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested earlier into an article on the University or the Rector organisation itself. Not really useful as a bunch of tiny stubs with minimal room for expansion, but someone might find an integrated article useful.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Merge and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2008 (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.