Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. This is a tough call. Here's my reasoning: straight up on "votes", it's 7-5 delete (including nominator). But if you discount two editors who registered just for this discussion and (to their credit and honor) admitted to being SUCS members, it's 7-3. That's very close to being consensus right there, but not quite. So let's look at the other factors: (1) The article was recently nominated for AfD, and did survive, the closing admin finding no Delete consensus even after discounting puppets.(2) The argument that Alan Cox used the club's network for important Linux development counts for something. That's about it; otherwise there are no strong arguments for a Keep. That there may be articles on organizations no more notable than SUCS is not really germane; this argument is usually not strongly considered by most closers, lest Wikipedia begin a race to the bottom on notability.

On the other hand, (1) I found the previous nom to be so rife with puppets as to be essentially of little or no value a precedent (and thus this re-nomination is in order) and (2) the argument that the club fails WP:ORG is a strong one, and was not really succesfully refuted either here or in the previous AfD. The club does fail WP:ORG, I think; the only outside reference cited in the article is a Usenet post. This in my view overrides the Alan Cox connection, which does not seem to be strong enough to carry an entire article -- it could perhaps be reduced to a sentence in the Alan Cox article.

On straight-up counting, I see seven editors out of (an effective) ten suggesting Delete. And I see the stronger argument (fails WP:ORG stated and not really refuted by the Delete commentors. To me, that makes for a Delete consensus. Herostratus 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Swansea University Computer Society
This was previously nominated, discussion is found at Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1. However, I feel that the resulting discussion was not satisfactory, there were too many newbies voting, and the discussion was not properly closed. I'd like to do this properly this time round. The first time I wrote "only have 180 members, making it non-notable. Plus, its in Swansea, which is never a good place to be!" as a reason to AFD it. Which was admittedly a little naïve. Now, I curtail that somewhat, my reasoning being "only have 180 members, making it non-notable". I call for a recognised responsable administator to close the debate. OK, so Deathphoenix, who closed the last discussion, fits the bill. But that may've been a mistake. --Dangherous 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn. Fails WP:ORG.  Tychocat 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Fails WP:ORG.--Nick Y. 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete student societies do not belong here, get your own page. SM247 My Talk  01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into Swansea University. It is a club.  A rather established one, but nonetheless.  Its computers were used by someone notable.  Now if they'd put an auto on top of a building we'd have to keep it... (cough!) Shenme 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are one of the (if not the) bigest computer societies in the UK, the society (or rather its members) have had a significant involvement with the development of linux in the early days and continue to contribute to many OpenSource projects, but you already know that having read the article... all the arguments have already been made at Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1 It seems to me this discussion has been reopened purely because it didn't go the way Dangherous wanted the first time... rollercow (SUCS Admin) 81.96.205.21 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Student societies do belong here - there is even a category for them. Other universities actually have their own society list pages in Wikipedia and yet I don't see any of them up for deletion. This deletion nomination is being driven by the same user as last time. He has brought no new arguments forward and the current number of members has nothing to do with notability. (SUCS member) --Deniswalker 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist. This nomination has not followed the proper procedure for second-time nominations - this page should be at Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society (2nd nomination), instead of overwriting the old debate, which I note is now at Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1. See Deletion_policy. Hairy Dude 13:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see it's already been moved somewhere saner. In that case Speedy Keep. See Deletion_policy. The article has already survived AfD once and no new arguments have been presented. Hairy Dude 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the other articles in Category:British student societies this is just as notable as most of them in there.  Wikipedia is not paper and there is no need to set the notability bar too high.  Last time I said "Keep Due to their contribution to Linux" and I see no reason to change my mind. --RicDod 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Having just had a quick look, I suspect somebody can go through that cat and scythe a fair few of them down for painful want of notability. SM247 My Talk  06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per above.  The existence of a cat does not make a class of articles encylopedic.  Vegaswikian 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The society certainly is notable and student societies do belong in Wikipedia - why else would there be a category for them?  I agree with RicDod that Wikipedia can contain much more information than a paper encyclopedia, so the notability bar should not be too high - why remove information that some people will find useful?  FireFury
 * It's a really nicely written article, quite informative, fairly written, which is why it pains me to say delete because the subject is fundamentally non-notable. David | Talk 22:22, 6 July 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.