Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Russian 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) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oxford University Russian 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 endorsed by User:Fayenatic london who wrote "I looked in Google books and found it mentioned only a couple of times in passing" and deprodded by User:J31ox with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). J31ox did add an academic reference but I read it (pretty short) and it does not discuss the club except in passing; it only dedicates one sentence to the Club: "Last but not least, the minutes are an important source for the rich history of the Club which was a self governing student organization, whose regular meetings took place, for most of the time, every week in Full term"). I am afraid that this is still not enough to declare the club an organization that passes our notability requirements: could anyone find at least a paragraph on this organization that is not self-published? Did any scholar actually deem it important enough to publish more than one sentence about it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose editor (AFAICS, ~25 of your 37 contributions to Wikipedia are to this article or to this AFD), so it is unsurprising that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But unless and until there is a consensus to change those guidelines, your appeals to your own personal view of notability simply clutter the page and convey the impression that some editors associated with this society and/or Oxford University are trying to bludgeon Wikipedia into setting aside its content policies. This conduct is disruptive; please desist. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC) This persistent disregard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines by Oxford-linked editors does nothing to bolster their case, and brings their university into disrepute. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I think you will find that more experienced editors are well aware of the notability guidelines, so selective quoting from them also adds nothing except further clutter. The crucial test here is WP:GNG, which I suggest you study. If you can produce evidence that the club has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. outside the university), then that would strengthen the case for keeping the article. However, your contribution of apparent insider knowledge of the society and defence of its worthiness give an impression that there may be some sort of organised campaign from the Society or University ... and such activities are always counter-productive at AFD discussions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Oxford-linked editors are as welcome as anyone else to offer evidence related to applying the notability guidelines to this topic ... but they are most definitely not welcome to clutter up this page with WP:ILIKEIT demands that Wikipedia ignore its guidelines because of their personal connections to this topic. It is regrettable that a number of people apparently connected to this previously-reputable university are unwilling to accept the distinction. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) This is a discussion about applying the notability guidelines. Please stop disrupting it with arguments which are irrelevant to that decision. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC) As to other societies, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... but feel free to nominate another article for deletion if it fails WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I gave earlier. The citation quoted only confirms existence, not notability. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep; the above mentioned source http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/sla.1999.5.2.17 is in reality a seven page article from one of the most prestigious journals for slavonic studies in the English-speaking world with detailed references, not only mentioning the Oxford Russian Club and its affairs (in particular throughout the footnotes) but also titled "Nikolai Bakhtin and the Oxford Russian Club"! Furthermore, in the Wikipedia article's references one may find in addition a reference of a published newspaper article http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/05/02/russian-society-to-host-prince/ with regards to an official visit of members of the British Royal Family to the Club, and yet another academic reference Frank, Siggy. Nabokov's Theatrical Imagination. p. 10. - this time from a published book - confirming that Vladimir Nabokov donated one of his plays (The Waltz Invention) to be staged for its international premiere by the Oxford University Russian Club in 1968. Both of those events are most certainly notable, and the reference provided is extensive. One cannot but stress out however the sheer disappointment caused when the person who seems to have suggested this article for deletion - yet again - seems to have copious amounts of free time to spare in nitpicking the references of a well-established and known student association with a long history, while another association - the Oxford University Polish Society - maintains an article which has not been proposed for deletion despite the fact that it does not have single reference (since the link it uses as one is actually not relevant and inappropriately used)! Whether this aberrant behaviour is the result of an accidental oversight or mistake, or it is derived from pure prejudice and pusillanimity is not for me to judge. It is for me however to kindly inform everyone that the article is properly referenced both by the Club itself and multiple third parties, and it adequately displays the notability of the organisation. User:J31ox 05:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Setting aside some bad faith personal attacks here, for which I would expect an apology and refactoring, I will point out that you still fail to show any source which covers the club in-depth (mention in a title or a sentence of two in a footnote is not sufficient). That notable people were part of the club is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Oxford Student is a niche/local publication of dubious notability itself, and it cannot confer notability on topics it discusses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though I have to admit that the honourable thing has been done, and the Polish Society has been suggested for deletion, I once more have to stress out that the argument against the Oxford University Russian Club is illogical, and seems to be based on nothing more than obstinance (since this is not the first time that the same person has suggested this article for deletion, despite the gradual adding of third party references in the last six months). In what appears to be an attempt to discredit the references of the article, "The Oxford Student" - one of the most successful student media outlets in the United Kingdom - has been proposed for deletion by the same editor. I will not loiter here by making an argument for the Oxford student on this discussion, but instead I will make clear that regardless of the media outlet in question and the false suggestion that it might not be notable enough, hosting members of the British Royal Family is a notable event on its own right (additional picture evidence of this visit can be found on the Club's website). In the same manner, hosting an international premiere of a play written by an author of international renown such as Vladimir Nabokov is an event of unquestionable notability; the reference of the specific event comes from a published book, and seems to have been somehow overlooked by those who suggest deletion. Finally, there seems to have been a suggestion that an organisation is not made notable by hosting notable people and/or having notable members, which is obviously nonsensical. What is it that makes the Bullingdon Club, or the Piers Gaveston Society notable enough to warrant myriads of news articles, encyclopaedia entries, or in the case of one of them even a film, other than the notability of their members? What makes the Oxford Union notable enough, if it is not the notability of the people it is hosting? The arguments provided here against the notability of the Club are clearly insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J31ox (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I still don't see the "honorable" behavior like apology, or refactoring, or your part. Anyway, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of your other claims (ex. hosting members of the Royal Family) matters, such events do not confer notability unless they are noted by the other sources. We cannot make such arguments ourselves, it would be WP:OR. Wikipedia is not here to promote things that nobody else has deemed important enough to discuss in depth in reliable, independent sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The honourable behaviour was to correct oversights with regards to other articles, that unlike this one have little or no reference. I have clearly stated that this could be caused "either by an oversight or mistake, or by prejudice and pusillanimity". It was not me who at any occasion worded any personal attack or made a choice out of the two alternatives I offered. It was not me who attempted to delete the article of an undoubtedly notable media outlet within the University of Oxford, in what could also be seen either as a mistake - which, very much like the removal of this page, would cause great trouble to all those who research student life within the University of Oxford (and keeping in mind it is Oxford we are talking about this is not few) - or a deliberate attempt to discredit this very article's references. The fact however is that "The Oxford Student" is a notable and independent third-party source, that has clearly made a publication about the Club, as have two other independent authors listed in the article's references, amongst other unpublished records made by third parties and benefactors. What this whole point boils down to is that the logical argument is still not addressed; it is simply illogical to claim that it is not its notable guests and members that grant an organisation of the nature of the Club notability! User:J31ox 12:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia guidelines on notability (see e.g. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED) are very clear: notable guests and members are irrelevant to notability.
 * My appeals are to logic purely; and I would not have been forced to make so many contributions in this discussion if it was not logic itself that some people seem to defy. I appreciate your recommendation with regards to policies and guidelines, but I would like to make sure you take into consideration all of the additional sources of this page which are not in any way related to the Club or the University. User:J31ox 13:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The claim that you are appealing to logic might carry some plausibility if your purported logic was not based on an argument which has long been specifically excluded by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
 * Would have argued for "keep", but defender of article's personal attack on nominator suggests to me that something dodgy is going on with the article, so will refrain.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the best-cited societies at the University of Oxford and its founder is prominently featured on Wikipedia. User:BotmanJWPM —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * notability is not inherited, so the notability of its founder is irrelevant to this discussion. AS to citations, if you have evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources (which might establish that the topic meets WP:GNG), then please present it here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this page is informative about the student society in Oxford. Ilyacambridge (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Ilyacambridge (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hmmm, WP:SPA who created Cambridge University Russian Society? Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that it meets WP:GNG's requirement of substantive coverage. The sources cited are all articles with a different focus, but which give the society passing mention. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. The nominator is an experienced, highly valued contributor at Wikipedia; we occasionally disagree at Articles for Deletion, but suggestions of prejudice are not appropriate. On the merits: I think The Oxford Student is a notable student newspaper; however, coverage in a student paper (notable or not) may be reliable for some purposes, but it generally won't convey notability on campus-based topics such as a student organization.  Instead I would want to see better evidence that the Russian Club/Society  has gotten substantive attention off campus for its activities. The Bakhtin article might have some relevant content, but I can see only the first page: what, and how much, does it say about the Club?  Likewise, the Nabokov premiere is something the club can take pride in having produced, but is there anything in the coverage of that play that tells us more about the club?   I looked at the GBooks version of Prince Felix's autobiography  but didn't find anything about this club that he is said to have founded. Is there anything else out there? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check my comment above, in which you'll see that I quote pretty much everything the Bakhtin article has to say about the club. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The OU Russian Society is one of the most active societies in Oxford University. Historical source or entity or personality is notable as long as it is documented and information is well-preserved. Russian Society has its records in the Oxford University Archives undoubtedly, moreover, it has its legal foundation in the form of constitution and Society's proceedings. The wikipedia page is crucial as long as there are student freshers of Russian nationality or those who are interested in Russian culture and history. The society is a binding element in building student community. The Oxford Student, I agree with previous comments, is not comparable to well-cited sources as the Financial Times or the Guardian. However, it is an important student venture many students are passionate about. The positions in its committee are highly competitive. Thus, the wiki page is important to make people familiar with what society options they may have in the University. Probably, some references on archives could be made.--Catarjina (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * One more comment- from wikipedia's notability guidelines: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Catarjina (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I see that only contributions you have made to Wikipedia are to this discussion. As such, you may not be as familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as more experienced editors. So you may not be aware that issues such as the legal status of the society, or whether students find it helpful, are irrelevant to the decision about whether to delete this article. Adding a paragraph about such irrelevancies simply clutters the discussion, and gives the strong impression that you are here solely to seek publicity for a club with which you may be associated, rather than to improve Wikipedia.
 * It would appear to me that people who seem to have an internal view of this association or to be involved with its administration, are dissuaded or actively discouraged from making their argument or defending themselves. I am sincerely hoping that I am wrong(!) User:J31ox 13:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:COI; it's a pity that some Oxford people seem seem so oblivious to the concept of a conflict of interest.
 * I myself have offered evidence, from multiple sources which I believe to be sufficient; the discussion which followed between myself and other editors was a series contrasting arguments on whether the evidence given is of significance or not, and not clutter. Different independent individuals are responsible for their own comments and arguments, but I fail to see how any of them clutter the page. At last but not least, "a previously-reputable university"? Such a disreputable, sycophantic statement could only bring shame to this discussion. It is very unfortunate that an editor does not seem to understand that different individuals have every right to openly defend themselves and this article, whether they are related with the Club and the University or not. This is a Wikipedia article discussion Madame, not a closed court in the PRC(!) User:J31ox 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * J31ox, you posted in this section of the page to complain about my note to another editor that their contribution offered no evidence relevant to the notability guidelines, and you chose to complain about that.
 * Thank you for your comment. I have been involved in wikipedia related research and wiki-based project for some time, so I am aware of its policy and guidelines. However, thank you for mentioning useful links. My comment was not related to anyone in this discussion, so I feel upset of being attacked in this way. Oxford University German Society has not been reported for deletion, though they refer to themselves on their page. I hope that the committee members will see this discussion and will make relevant amendments on the page. Thus, this page is the matter of improvement, but not deletion.--Catarjina (talk) 17:52 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you don't want to be criticised for posting irrelevancies, the solution is to not post irrelevancies.
 * Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Oxford University German Society. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 1 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.