Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University College London Conservative Society (2nd 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 was   delete. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

University College London Conservative Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Student society. Has some notable patrons and notable former members, but does not appear to be any significant coverage in secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

UCL Conservative Society is the oldest university Conservative Society in England, and older than both that of Oxford and Cambridge - which themselves have seriously controversial cases + notable alumni that make it really differ from that of UCL. To add, is this really a good a reputation for a student association? Furthermore, UCL Tories has its share of controversy, which could be posted on this page, but the page does not need be deleted because it does not involve this. Likewise, Glasgow University Conservative Association has a lot less information on its page (explaining its role, and its links with Disraeli - which altogether except for its links with the former PM, is the same as this page). I clearly have stated the case to keep the page running; why should such a page be killed off? We need to keep these sort of pages to add to what the universities' offer or have had, and how famous individuals have been part of it. I feel the case for deletion is somewhat concerning and annoying as other pages are being kept alive, when they are very similar to those aforementioned. I feel that this page works, and has done before and will do, and that it should not be deleted. --Tarzan1986 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of verifiability of the society or its membership in secondary sources. As a general rule of thumb, student societies that exist at a single university are not notable. I see no reason for this article to be an exception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with deletion - Yes I see that, however, why is this the article people want to see deleted? Cambridge University Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats are two political societies that have similar stories (on Wiki) to that of UCLU Tories - to which neither are being promoted to be deleted. Furthermore, articles such as Oxford Law Society (the University dept's own soc) has no real substance behind its history except for a Presidential list which goes back to 2000. Why is there a need to close a page I ask? Why? Evermore, there is verifiability of the society's history, constitution, members, society history, society events, society visitors, society honorary members, past officers, committee positions, campaigning, events, role in the current media (look at the tuition fees debates, incl. those on BBC London Radio) etc etc. I see this as a silly and strange move. The article has one been deleted before, yes, but why delete it - when if you refer back - it has more content, greater information about society history and events etc, and really does substantiate its reasons to stay. Not to mention, it is the oldest Tory university association in England, and its page is very similar content/descriptive-wise to that of its counterpart societies - which themselves shouldn't be singled out as 'great bastion' societies then should they? UCL Tory Society has been founded since 1908, and has gone through great times, controversy and more. If you want the page to remain in a lesser state, get it to be edited down (and show your support here) - but if you wish it to be deleted, the reasons you give severely contradict themselves when other university association's articles are considered in the picture. I'm sorry, but it has no real need to be deleted. --Tarzan1986 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists. Articles are considered for deletion on their own merits (or lack thereof). If the other two organizations are in similar situations, then their pages are susceptible to being nominated for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete  Although we so far have usually accepted articles for the most important student clubs at the most important universities, I do not think this is one of them.I think comparability matters-- Wikipedia should try for at least some degree of consistency. One of the things to go by is distinguished alumni--the other 3 clubs mentioned by Tarzan have extremely impressive lists, as do the Cambridge University Conservative Association and the Oxford University Conservative Association.  The Glasgow University Conservative Association does not list any famous alumni & is therefore quite possibly non-notable unless they can be identified. (I'll nominate it if we decide to delete this one.)  Alas, the present society  does not have any--I thought at first glance it might be comparable, until I read more carefully: the list is headed: "Although not fully known of their Society membership, other former university alumni and staff have been prominent figures on the Conservative political scene". In other words, there are no known prominent alumni.      DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Hasn't this already been debated for deletion? Agree with DGG. Not sure about the sourcing... Asabenn (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete longevity doesn't equal notabliity. None of the references supplied in the article support claims made in the article.  Those references are either primary sources or of questionable reliability (with the exception of the BBC coverage though the origanizatio is not the subject of that coverage and is only mentioned in passing).  Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources in general.  Seems a bit coat-rack-y as well. RadioFan (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (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.