Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Andrews University Conservative and Unionist Association


 * 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 Feel free to recreate once reliable third-party sources are found, but mere promises that they will appear someday aren't enough. W.marsh 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

St Andrews University Conservative and Unionist Association
Delete - although a branch of a national political party, this club itself isn't notable. Otherwise we would have articles on every major political party's branch in every university and in every town. See the debate on the St Andrews' SNP branch here for further discussion. The content of course leaves a lot to be desired too - a huge chunk of quoted text plus a list of student committee members. The unsubstantiated and entirely unconvincing claim of notability does however save it from a speedy, I guess. --SandyDancer 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, to a large extent. However, perhaps, in its establishment in the 1860s it may well be amongst the oldest Conservative groups at any University; considering there were only three universities in England at this time; Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, I do believe. I think this ought to be looked into.  If not then, true, it is not notable.--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But St Andrews is in Scotland and there were more than three universities there. Also from the article it is clear that groups from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities were older.Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per deletion of similar articles on student associations. Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because of the age of the association, provided the continuous existence of the group is verified with good references. (There is no consistent practice to delete "similar articles on student associations" - each has to be judged on its own merits.) Or weak delete with no prejudice against recreation of a better version, if nobody bothers to work on improving the article now. Upp◦land 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment longetivity = notability? I think not. And where are these "good references"? There isn't one, apart from the huge quote from an old newspaper which makes up most of the article. --SandyDancer 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, longevity often equals notability. As for the good references, I have no idea where they are. I was hoping somebody who cares about this article would rise to the challenge and produce them. Upp◦land 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that would be good, yes. "Multiple non-trivial references" are needed. --SandyDancer 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

weak keep This should be a notably sized branch and thus worth including.DGG 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Longevity does not seem to constitute notability, see the Oxford Monarchists, recently deleted, which was one of the oldest Societies in Oxford.--Couter-revolutionary 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is no precedent. As the comment of the closing admin makes clear, it was the lack of cited sources that was the problem, and that seems to be the problem with this one too. Upp◦land 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and I will personally make sure this is updated within the next couple of months. I have access to a wealth of information which can be added to this article (with appropriate references)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestpa (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. That this is a student society is not relevant. If it were notable I would advocate keeping, but it is not. The article indicates that the society is old, but this is not per se notable. The article does not establish how the society is different from any other student political society. Why should anyone outside St Andrew's have heard of it ? What does this society do that other similar societies do not ? The questions are not answered. Notability is not proven. WMMartin 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. Longevity is an insufficient claim to notability (per SandyDancer and WMMartin); the only other claim of notability is a membership of 250, which is nothing special. - mholland 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the above two comments, per the proposed WP:ORG, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And none can be, it seems, in this case. Sandstein 05:54, 7 December 2006 (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.