Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Empire Club


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

United Empire Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speedy delete? Total nonsense. Not notable. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It's hardly nonsense, but it does seem non-notable - there are a ton of mentions in the media (books, news), but nothing approaching significant coverage that I can find. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There was a United Empire Club on Piccadilly in London, which the 1915 edition of Baedeker (!) describes as for tariff reformers. There is another book source which apparently confirms that it was founded in 1904. There was also a United Empire Club in Toronto founded in 1875, and probably others. I can see no evidence of continuity between these and the body now going by that name, and the ideas of the clubs have nothing in common. I'm sure that there is a lot that could be written about the original United Empire Clubs and the politics of empire which would make interesting reading, but we cannot start from here. The present club has no evidence of notability that I can see, not even its own building. --AJHingston (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. In what way is it nonsense? Notable gentlemen's club, many of whose members have listed membership in Who's Who. No idea whether the current club is notable, but it certainly has been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nearly nonsense, it talks of "noble families from the United States." And titles of nobility may not be given by other countries the US without Congressional approval! The page is discussing a non-notable topic. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 23:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a London gentlemen's club. It is certainly not nonsense.  The reference to "dormancy" perhaps refers to the club having had periods when it had not premises.  Such clubs have played an important role in the upper echaelons of London society.  The article may well need some tidying up.  Please follow the link to its website.  Since it is a London club, and admitting only landed gentry and above, the question of what Americans are eligible is a problem for them.  Like Necrothesp, I have no idea whehter the present club is notable.  The fact that it was notable at an earlier period should be sufficient for keeping it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The difficulty, though, is in determining whether it is the same club, and not one sharing the name. Despite the assertions on the website that it was founded in 1904, there is actually nothing at all there concerning ownership, constitution, etc of the present 'club', nor can I find any trace of that online. If the original club were defunct there would be nothing to stop a private individual or company trading under that name. There is always a reason to be extemely cautious about a website engaging in trading activity which gives no clue as to ownership and which is operating via a company that specialises in web marketing and consultancy even down to the processing of payments. That is true even if everything is legal and above board. The possibility of WP being used as a means of legitimising unproven commercial claims is an important reason why safeguards exist and we have this process. --AJHingston (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever its present status, if it was notable in the past, then the article should remain. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument, but we have to be careful. Take the hypothetical case of two restaurants. One famous and award winning. It closes. Some years later another opens with the same name, but not otherwise connected. We would not be happy with an article about the new restaurant claiming notability on account of its predecessor, and would say that notability is not inherited. Nor would we be happy at an article about the original making reference to the new beyond a statement that they were different establishments. I may be unduly cautious here, but the fact is that we have a case where we seem to have no information about the current 'club' from reliable sources independent of the subject. The situation is even worse than usual, because the website is operated by a third party through whom financial transactions are processed, so we lack even reliable first party information. If the club is indeed based in England there is even a further unusual circumstance since it is normally a legal requirement that those engaged in trade should identify themselves to the customer, yet any statement about its legal status, ownership etc, let alone company registration, seems to me also to be missing. It may be that I have overlooked it, the information may be omitted in error, or there may be some other innocent explanation. But we have to be very cautious because there are occasions when statements are made in BLPs or in reference to companies that prove not only to be unverifiable but actually untrue, and we have to suspect that they were placed in Wikipedia with the deliberate intention to give those claims a degree of veracity. I think we have two choices, therefore. We can retain the article as a stub, but deleting any information which is not known to relate to the original foundation, or to redirect to the List of London's gentlemen's clubs on the grounds that this contains just about all that can reasonably said, unless anyone can come up with more. I favour the latter course, not least because I am concerned that further efforts might be made to introduce information into the article which actually relates to the present entity. For example, I do not see any evidence at all that the original free trade club was composed wholly or mainly of members of the nobility or was particularly secretive, but I can see why it might serve the interests of the operators of the present entity to present it in that way. --AJHingston (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 30 March 2012 (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.