Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford International Forum


 * 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 Userify to User:CCorward/Oxford International Forum. The article should only be moved back into the main space after it has been reliably sourced and can demonstrate notability. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oxford International Forum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable defunct student society. Not even a single hit on Google (apart from the Wikipedia article and a derived search hit). Edcolins 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Note that I modified the wording of my nomination in the meantime.--Edcolins 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)"
 * Delete, may well have played a role in organizing these events, but did not make the papers. Nothing found in Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on or suspend. I am familiar with the subject, yes it did play a role and it was in the headlines, especially the two local papers Cherwell (newspaper) and Oxford Student, but they were not online at that time.  I have some of the cuttings, and will place the references there when I get round to them, not kept here.  If you cannot hang on, I suggest you suspend the article until that time, if technically possible.  On at least some occasions it made national news too but again not online. --CCorward  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has only seven edits, all made on September 11, 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Myth1727. See Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Author wants more time, see below Delete . Subject fails Verifiability. I removed the two false references.  Unlikely to be able to meet Notability.  --SmokeyJoe 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on. SmokeyJoe, how can you assert that the references were false ??  As I understand them, they stated generically that refs are included in The Oxford Student and Cherwell (newspaper) for those years, which are not online (and I believe this is true, and as I have copies of relevant issues, I could then find exact dates, as indicated above).  Did you go and check every single issue of those newspapers from ten years ago, to make such an assertion ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference needs to be more specific to be of any use. When I followed the link and searched for the subject, I didn’t find it.  The reference provided me with no evidence of the existence of the subject!  Please provide a reference that points directly to independent verification of the existence of the subject, and some coverage of the subject.  Publication, Issue, Page no.s, title and author.  --SmokeyJoe 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy No reliable sources to establish notability.  The lack of any meaningful Google search results   for an organization that was only active in the 1990s suggests a significant lack of notability.  -- JamesTeterenko 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I'd be fine with userfying it for now to give the author a chance to build on it.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on. Why can't I have time to find the refs and put them there, and you can suspend in the meantime ?  And there was no link anyway in those refs, since they referred to hard copy publications.  Also, notable individuals were involved at the time, and red links might then happen CCorward 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy for CCorward. Assuming good faith, he has a pile of old student newspapers that he needs to sort through to find references supporting the subject.  The subject is historical, and old print references are the only ones that may exist.  --SmokeyJoe 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that CCorward declared in Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727 that he was not the same person ("I think I know the sockpupeteer, which explains my interest in some subjects as I mentioned above, but I am not the same person.") as Jonathan288, Unitsactor, and Whomseems, who edited the article at stake. In view of Userfication ("provided that ... (2) they are the only editor who has edited the content of the page."), I am not quite sure to where the article should/could be userfied... --Edcolins 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject existed between 14 and 9 years ago, there would be no surprise in discovering that the article’s contributors know each other. If they are sockpuppets, I don’t see the harm being done here.  The number of contributors should have no bearing on the fate of the article, whether the decision is made now or postponed.  The critical thing for this article is the demonstration of notability through coverage in secondary sources.  Whether the student newspapers alluded to are sufficiently reputable, I am undecided.  The article can be userfied by moving it to User:CCorward/Oxford International Forum.  --SmokeyJoe 04:29, 16 September 2007 (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.