Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University College London 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

University College London Conservative Society

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Although some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members. Even had they been notability might have been contentious, but as it is there is no notability associated with the society. Delete, therefore.--Anthony.bradbury 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Each of your statements is wrong:
 * 1) Every sentence in the article has a reference.  Thus, it is not "totally unsourced", but totally sourced.
 * 2) You have cited no precedent.  There are precedents to support keeping the article at in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats.  Note that these include university political societies.Hence, to claim that there is precedent is laughable.
 * 3) Your cookie-cutter, cut+paste assertion that the claim to notability is the fame of its alumni is false.  The 'Alumni' section comes at the end of the article.  The actual claim to notability is mainfold:
 * 3a) The society is the oldest and largest (by current student members) student Conservative society in the country.
 * 3b) The society is not a chapter of the Conservative Party, but an independent organisation unaffiliated to the party.  The relevant chapter of the Conservative Party is the Holborn and St Pancras Conservative Future.
 * 3c) The society is one of the largest student societies, of any sort, in London.  Look at  and tell me that there's any sort of policy or precedent.
 * 3d) The society has a seat on the National Convention of the Conservative Party.  It is, therefore, important by this ex officio status afforded to its President.
 * 3e) The society has received a lot of attention in the blogosphere and the mainstream media.  Most recently, Hugo Rifkind wrote a mini-article on the society in his column in the Times on 2nd March 2007.
 * 3f) The society hosts innumerable Members of Parliament, Lords, and the Shadow Cabinet.  In the last two weeks alone, the society has hosted Lord Strathclyde (27/2), John Whittingdale (2/3), and Richard Ottaway (6/3).
 * Given the above, I suggest that you, and the two people that have been misguided by your comment, reconsider your position. Bastin 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * per your (3c), refer WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and yes, there are articles in that category that should be deleted as well. Please feel free to PROD them. Per (3e), if there is suitable external sourcing available then add it, instead of complaining about frivolous PRODs - this one was perfectly justified at this point.  Eliminator JR   Talk  00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [Apologies for not replying sooner] It's not a matter of citing articles that merely exist, but articles that have survived AfD. Just in the British societies, the list includes Sheffield University Theatre Company, Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, Cambridge University Light Entertainment Society, Cambridge Universities Labour Club, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, Glasgow University Student Television, York Student Television, Oxford Law Society, Out of the Blue (Oxford University), Piers Gaveston Society, and Oxford University Cave Club.  Note that these include university political societies.  I asked for the precedent that was claimed when it was listed.  This has not been provided.  The above ought to serve as precedent to the contrary, even ignoring the above facts that make the UCL Conservative Society one of the most notable student societies (of any sort) in the UK.  Bastin 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing these to our attention; I'm sure the AfDs will be flying fast and furiously. RGTraynor 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Every source provided appears to be written by the organisation in question. Sources from outside the organisation are needed most. -- saberwyn 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the solution is to make that point on the talk page, use Fact and Notability, and to allow a short period in which the editors can then diversify the sources. The solution is NOT to inappropriately PROD the article, and immediately AfD it when that PROD is objected to.  I have begun the process of introducing other sources, and intend to make at least half of the sources published by other individuals or organisations in the next couple of days. Bastin 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- not notable Astrotrain 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Astrotrain. You can't claim an article is "totally sourced" when all the references are from the organisation in question. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Orig., author is right. Major institution in contemporary and 20th c UK politics. The alumni make it N. Just undocumented, not undocumentable. Rather odd argument above: "though some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members"   This being a student society, that is by definition  impossible--perhaps set as a deliberately absurd criterion. The reason schools, college, societies,  are notable is because of their alumni--everything they might do in the organization would be irrelevant if there hadn't been alums whose real-life work made it worth thinking about in the first place--otherwise they would have  been failures  altogether.
 * There are still a few more days, and the supporters better get the refs in--to save WP from the embarrassment of having deleted these 3 articles. DGG 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are many articles on left wing political associations on wikipedia. If you delete one article on political associations, then you have to delete all; and no one will want that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs)
 * Delete no reliable sources, all are from subject of article. Derex 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, NN, fails WP:ATT. Amidst the indignation, I'm waiting for some sourcing which indicates that this organization is notable as a society, not that a bunch of its alums have made good (something which could be said of a great many otherwise non-notable college societies).  Great, so they get to send a delegate to Tory national conventions.  No doubt the St-Brixley-In-The-Moor Conservative Party caucus does too, but we don't have articles on similar local Tory councils.  RGTraynor 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 21:54, 12 March 2007 (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.