Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University German 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oxford University German Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "deprod; the oldest such society in Britain would seem to be notable". Well, there is no provision that "oldest X in Fooland" is notable. I couldn't find any good sources about this, and as such this student club does not seem to pass notability criteria. Can anyone find any sources that discuss its significance, importance, etc.? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See related Articles for deletion/Oxford University Russian Society. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A society that's over a century old at one of the most famous universities in the world and that is the oldest such society in its country would seem to me to carry sufficient notability for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read my nomination? There's nothing in the rules that say that a foo-years old, oldest-foo in foo is notable. Plus, there is the small issue of the oldest claim being unsourced; this could well be pure PR/OR on the part of the student club member who presumably wrote this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  19:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read it. Don't agree with it. Applied common sense as opposed to non-existent "rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Per common sense, I stand by my view that this is a footnote student organization that has zero impact outside its room and lacks an lacks any real world importance, thus being totally unencyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the only references this page has originate from the organisation itself. The journal reference as a matter of fact is not even a journal; but simply an old minutes book of the club. User: J31ox 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no arbitrary age at which something suddenly becomes automatically notable. We need WP:RS to demonstrate meeting of WP:ORGDEPTH. Given this organisation has existed for some time, you would assume it would have in-depth coverage in reliable sources if it was notable. AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As per AusLondonder. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 24 February 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.