Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford-Georgian 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. m.o.p 04:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was   delete. I have discounted spa and ip votes and the established users have a clear consensus to delete. The sources presented have clearly been closely examined and found wanting. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oxford-Georgian Society

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An AFD nomination was started for this page, but the nomination process was never completed, so the discussion never took place. I am completing the process now, with the nominator's reasoning immediately below. (I'm remaining neutral in the discussion for now.) Peacock (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.georgianoxford.org This is an official website of Oxford-Georgian Society, which is controlled by Oxford University, all information there is checked by the university, hence there must be no errors. In the opposite this article states different aims of the society, has different logo, (where uses oxford university arms, which is not permitted) and has invalid information, besides there is not enough documentation that once it was a society, because there is only one document of registration, which is not enough for society to be named as oxford university Georgian Society. All documents are provided by the real web-page. http://www.georgianoxford.org/about-us/oxge-documents — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxfordGeo (talk • contribs) — OxfordGeo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really? Are you seriously claiming that (1) the university controls the websites of all student societies, (2) the university checks all student society websites for accuracy (3) anything checked by the university is guaranteed free from error?  Really??  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a strange case. The original nomination was back in July. The nominator has not edited WP since then and his three edits are all about this deletion nomination. It is unlikely that he will notice that this deletion discussion is now active. His username also suggest that he has an axe to grind about this society. I do not think that all Oxford University societies are controlled by the university in any real sense and I doubt that their web sites are checked. It is probably correct however that if a complaint is made, the Proctors may demand that the web site be changed or taken down. That is also why societies have a senior member. The society was registered and it appears to still exist, so it is unclear what the nominator is saying. I am inclined to think this discussion should be closed, leaving it open for someone to open it again in a proper way, but let us see whether anyone can throw more light on the notability of this article. Oxford student societies can be notable and many articles on them exist. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I agree, it is dubious why the nomination has been made again. This article seems in line with other wikipedia articles on Oxford societies., , , . Any additions and changes should be discussed in the discussion page not nominated for deletion. Since its the second time this is happening, it looks more like vandalism. -- Georgians Abroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.16.70 (talk • contribs)
 * Second time? The process of adding the AfD templates was done badly. The first time it was attempted, they were removed quite improperly. It is not allowed to remove AfD templates until the debate has finished. They were then added again, but it was not listed for discussion. That has now happened. I did not say that "it is dubious why the nomination has been made again". What are you agreeing with? -- Bduke    (Discussion)  09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apologies Bduke, I must have somewhat misunderstood you, I was simply agreeing with your comments that its unclear what the nominator is saying and the way the whole nomination was handled does seem like they just have an axe to grind about this society. We represent the Georgian Community in Great Britain and we would like to confirm that the society is active and is properly registered at the Proctors office. We would be happy to add additional information to bulk up the article. --62.244.16.70 (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Georgian Abroad


 * Delete The society (as opposed to some notable Georgian people) is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you note all other Wikipedia Oxford societies none of them have 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', most of them refer to their won website or university websites, by that logic other society articles should also be removed. I think it should be kept and maybe more links added. Here are few external examples, , etc.  --93.72.213.39 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)J Wlks — 93.72.213.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see Other stuff exists. If those subject are equally non-notable, then yes, they are also candidates for deletion.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its a matter of linking the article to additional external sources, not deleting the article because it's still in the process of being bulked up for info. Happy to look into it. --93.72.213.39 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)J Wilks
 * There are many WP articles on Oxford University Societies, but that is because they have been noticed by reliable external sources. It may well be that such sources exist for this Society, but none have been produced as yet. None of the references in the article point to sources that talk about the Society itself. I will be happy to change my view if such sources appear on the article, but for now I support delete as the conclusion of this debate. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - for two reasons
 * i) there are plenty of sources and published materials regarding the Georgian society and fund at Oxford. Some of its best achievements like the foundation of the Georgian section at Oxford University Bodleian library, , , and the Wardrop Fund for Georgian studies , , , ,  etc, have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Its just its currently not included in the article to the required degree, which should be done.
 * ii) Looking at the reason given as to why the page should be deleted by the nominating party, its states that its mainly lack of detail provided eg aims of the society, outdated logo and lack of links. From the edit history we can see that the previous logo has been removed and only the new one is showing, and new information has been added. Just as in the above case its the matter of adding more information, editing for outdated information and adding more external links rather than deleting the whole article. --85.210.44.131 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 85.210.44.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have looked at some of the links mentioned to support notability: none of http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/csb/rbd.html, http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/library/specialcollections/oriental_rarebooks/middleeast, http://ukingeorgia.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-georgia/commemorative-booklet/embassy-history, http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb3105mss.georg.b.1,c.1(p),2,d.1-2,3(p),4-5,e.1-2,, http://www.georgianbiography.com/bios/w/wardrop.htm or http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1919187 mentions this society at all. What was the point of mentioning them?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think different sources have a different purpose. Firstly some of the links you listed do mention the society directly, while others are needed to describe the details of the events or initiatives created by the society: http://ukingeorgia.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-georgia/commemorative-booklet/embassy-history "...After his departure from Tbilisi, Oliver Wardrop began a string of initiatives to bring Georgia to public attention in England. He helped to set up the Georgian Society ...". http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/csb/rbd.html and http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb3105mss.georg.b.1,c.1(p),2,d.1-2,3(p),4-5,e.1-2 - are to show details of the Georgian collection at the Bodleian library (number of books, manuscripts and such. This information is stated in the article, so should be backed primary sources). http://www.georgianbiography.com/bios/w/wardrop.htm - "...Sir Oliver helped establish a fund for the encouragement of Georgian studies at Oxford". http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1919187 - this is given as further reading, which includes private activities of Sir Oliver inc. his role in the set up of the Georgian Society. http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/library/specialcollections/oriental_rarebooks/middleeast "...Fund was founded for the encouragement of Georgian studies". Even more sources can be added which explicitly state the society, but not sure there is a need to list every single link available e.g., , , ,   --62.244.16.70 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Michael J — 62.244.16.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is quite clear that the Georgian Society founded by Wardrop, who died in 1948, is not the same entity as this student society founded in 2003. The attempts to ground the notability of this entity by references which refer to completely different entities and which do not mention this society at all are thoroughly bogus.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Cusop Dingle, you made a repeated comment below, so please refer to my response below, why it should be a Keep . --62.244.16.70 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Damian B.


 * - I think with new additions, sources and references, the conclusion would be to keep the article. --Charlie P Ryan (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Charlie P Ryan — Charlie P Ryan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Having had a chance to look more closely as this article now, I don't think it meets the general notability guidelines. None of the cited references are independent sources that are about the subject of the article.  Peacock (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Peacock, it seems to me that articles from UK Foreign Office, Oxford Libraries, British Council, National Archives, the Embassy etc are definitely independent sources. It also seems that nominators concern was regarding updating the aims of the society, changing the logo, and changing some information, which seems to have been done, so I would vote for Keep . --93.72.213.39 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)J. Wilks
 * The problem is not whether the sources are independent, it's that the independent sources do not support the notability of this society. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There appears to have been an attempt, both in the article and at this page, to represent this student society, formed in 2003, as being in some way the same entity as the Georgian Society founded by Sir Oliver Wardrop, who died in 1948; and in particular to use that claim here to establish notability. No reliable sources have been adduced for this claim, and it seems highly unlikely.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Cusop Dingle, having read the article I strongly disagree with your comment. Firstly, it seems you have removed the revised text, which cleared a lot of the issues being discussed. Secondly, the article is about the history of the Oxford Georgian Society, so in line with other Wikipedia articles on the societies at Oxford it goes to provide information in all periods of its history. Just to give a few examples - Oxford Polish Society  notes “The society was founded in 1955 as the Polish Students Club by Maciej Giertych and has existed in different forms ever since”, Oxford University Society of Change Ringers notes “...The society was founded by John Edward Troyte... In 1887, the society lapsed, with three brief revivals in 1890, 1892 and 1902, until it was revived in 1920 by Harry Miles and has been in continuous existence ever since” or Oxford University Jazz Society  “...after a period of inactivity in the 1980s, in 1994, the modern Jazz Club was reformed as the Jazz Society and is now colloquially known as "JazzSoc"”...this is pretty much standard for university societies, thus it is imperative that the history of the Georgian Society at Oxford starts with the Wardrop Georgian society and its contributions to Georgian activities in Oxford. By the way of background, not just societies but any organisation goes through several iterations of names, legal forms and operations throughout its history – BP was previously known as British Petroleum and even before that as Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Wikipedia article - .  Finally, there are official Oxford University documents provided for the today’s society, as well as independent references to the modern society, just to name a few, , gurieli-foundation.co.nr, ,  etc. For these reasons its a Keep . --62.244.16.70 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Damian B
 * I removed material for which the alleged references completely failed to support the assertions made in the article. If this society is indeed the same entity as the Wardrop Georgian Society, then there should be an independent reliable source that says so.  If not, we cannot say so.  Material about other Georgian societies is likely to be irrelevant to the article, and certainly cannot support the notability of this one.  Don't make unfounded assertions -- produce those sources.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There are multiple editors and IPs with the same highly distinctive style here. I have asked for an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup: and  have now been blocked as sockpuppets and I have struck through their comments here.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Please allow me to weigh in on this debate. First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that its important we assume good faith in trying to reach a consensus, as advised by Wikipedia. As contributors to the discussion, we all should primarily be concerned with two things: (1) examining whether the article meets the minimal burden of proof; and (2) if so, how can it be improved. Having read the article carefully, examined the arguments brought up in the debate, and assessed the editing history of the article, I believe that its absolutely clear that i) the society is indeed a registered society at Oxford University and is functioning, ii) there are external quality sources noting the activities of the society, iii) there is clearly an impressive heritage at Oxford University left by 'a Georgian society' which is also quite well documented. Some of the positive changes have been made to the article to improve it and bring closer in line with Wikipedia standards. This means the administrator of the article, appears to have demonstrated good faith, willingness to compromise, and an honest effort to improve the project in line with Wiki policy, which proves the effectiveness of this discussion to improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. Naturally, the article can and should be further improved and expanded, but Wikipedia entry on a Georgian Society at Oxford University should a Keep. DSloane (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.21.201 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: User:DSloane does not exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately points (ii) and (iii) of this comment are incorrect. There is nothing of signficance in external sources about the functioning of this society and there is no documentation of a link  between "a Georgian Society" founded by Wardrop and this one.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meant to / or should be about the whole history of the Georgian Society at Oxford University. The article would be incomplete and wrong if it omitted the first Georgian Society to exist in Oxford. Some of the wording needs to be amended to address this more clearly. --Archie Zuckermann (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Archie Zuckermann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, the article on this student society should be deleted, as other articles on student societies routinely are, even if they have notable members.  Eluchil404 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep according to Wikipedia, the consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes, and it seems to me no one is reading what the previous person has written and the merit of the statement - from the discussion, at the very least, no one seems to doubt there is sufficient coverage of the Georgian Society founded by Sir Wardrop, so there are no grounds to delete the article. There is also no doubt that there is a functioning Georgian Society now at Oxford University, so a mention of it should also be included as per the title of the article - the level of detail will depend on the information available --86.173.48.204 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (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.