Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool Physical Society


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool Physical Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

University student society that does not meet WP:GNG. If relevant, I am the Vice President of the society currently, and still see no reason for the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only coverage I can find about this society, despite its considerable age, is the book, already cited in the article, entitled Oliver Lodge And The Liverpool Physical Society, published by Liverpool University Press, and a passing mention of the society in Lodge's obituary.  The book is available for scrutiny at GBooks.  Is it enough to support a separate article?  If not, the book reference and a bit of the text from this article could be merged into Oliver Lodge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge; GNG requires multiple sources, and there's no precedent for leniency with student societies – Ypnypn (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, WP:GNG does not require multiple sources, but says that they are generally expected. When a source is a 310-page book about the topic from a university press it would seem reasonable to treat it as an exception to the general expectation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- It would have to be a very unusual student society to qualify for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification. Just so we are all on the same page here: as the cited book explains in detail, this was not, originally, a student society, and only became so some years after it was founded. Based on those portions of the book available in the GBooks preview, it appears that this organization was "notable", in some sense, during the 1890s, but perhaps not so much for the decades thereafter for which no sources have been found.  As I said above, that may not be enough to support an article, but at least a bit of this material is germane to Oliver Lodge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article here covers the physical society in as much manner as the section at Oliver Lodge does which seems somewhat redundant. I guess I'm in favour of keeping information on the society to that article, I don't think a separate article is justified. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into University of Liverpool. This is some good info, just not enough for a standalone page. J04n(talk page) 18:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained above that in its heyday this society was not affiliated to the University of Liverpool. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ORG. also as explained above it is inappropriate to redirect to University of Liverpool. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2013 (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.