Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCL Conservative 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. There is a clear consensus that this society is not notable because of insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

UCL Conservative Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This university club, all be it affiliated to a political party, is not in and of it's self notable. No GNews hits and the first page of GHits is mainly links to club sites. None of the ref's demonstrate significant coverage. Fails WP:CLUB and should be Deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC) First of all Oxford University CA has a lengthy article as does CUCA. Secondly, by googling UCL Conservatives its quite clear that its as active and as large as the other two institutions. News coverage of the society stretches across international press - Article 1 et c. Don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.137 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC) — 92.3.123.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I agree with Codf1977 that this society is not by itself notable. I've searched for sources before, and again today, but have not found any to show that it meets the general notability guideline. Smartse (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, other stuff exists but we're here to debate this article on its own merits. The article is a trivial mention and not enough to satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Smartse (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick glance also shows that OUCS and CUCS have been discussed significantly whereas UCLA does not seem to have been. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would cite the following as demonstrating national reach of organisation to the extent required by notability Article 1Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 It is perhaps true that the article is far too long and needs to be dramatically reduced however the fact that apparently notability is derived in OUCA and CUCA's case by merely attracting press attention it is clear that this article should equally be held to the same standards and kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.137 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2010(UTC)
 * Firstly notability is not inherited and the articles you post to are about Vitus van Rij and not the UCL Conservatives. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant news coverage to establish notability. Of the articles provided by user:92.3.123.137, most of them are actually about the Oxford and Cambridge clubs rather than this one (thus, ironically, establishing that those clubs ARE notable). The only article actually about this club is from the UCL college newspaper, which is not an "independent reliable source" as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (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.