Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Exeter Debating 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 redirect to University of Exeter.  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

University of Exeter Debating Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB or WP:ORG. Few mentions in independent sources and mostly based around who spoke there. Created by a COI editor Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

KEEP  Please do not delete. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the page which I think I have now corrected. There are a number of significant, non-trivial, reliable and independent news sources covering events at the Exeter University Debating Society which I think satisfy the notability criteria (WP:GNG). Previously, there were three independent sources quoted on the page: the Exeter University Student paper Exepose (perhaps not sufficient for WP:AUD?); "TheNationalStudent.com" whose reputation, audience and reliability is unclear but most persuasively on a Mail Online blog by Peter Hitchens who spoke at the Society. This article in the Mail Online alone could be sufficient for notability (WP:GNG) as it reports on the Society in a non-trivial way which seemingly satisfies an array of rules such as WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. However it could be argued that the Hitchens blog was more about the topic of debate (legalizing Cannabis) rather than the Society itself which merely provided the platform. So for good measure I have added two additional significant, reliable and independent sources. First is the coverage of the controversial visit of Enoch Powell in 1968. Clearly this is nearly 50 years ago which I guess shouldn't matter (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). This visit caused a significant demonstration by the students which was covered in a non-trivial way at the time by The Daily Telegraph and Exeter Express & Echo; there is also a video on the reference from a film archive. Second, I have also added coverage in The Independent of a debate on student fees, but again the Society merely provided the platform and so may fail WP:SIGCOV although the journalist does describe the Society as "infamous". Clearly just having notable speakers isn't sufficient for notability WP:INHERITORG. However, having the events at the Society independently reported in a non-trivial, verifiable (WP:NRV) way in reputable local and national newspapers which appear to satisfy WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND should be sufficient, surely?

Do not MERGE or REDIRECT. The Society does have a long history which is distinct and separate from Exeter University - so I don't feel it should be MERGED with or REDIRECTED to the Exeter University page, if I have interpreted WP:BRANCH and WP:MERGEREASON correctly? Any thoughts from others? Alphaomega111 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to University of Exeter perhaps where it is currently mentioned as this society's age certainly makes it notable and at least considerably known, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a better article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments SwisterTwister. I have attempted to make the article more interesting, more structured, add more coverage from appropriate sources and cut out superfluous content. I do think the article is now significantly better (in content, structure and references) due to this process and continue to think it should be a separate article from University of Exeter for three reasons. First the Society (1893) predates the University (Royal Charter in 1955) and has references to pre 1955 events making it slightly incongruent and not meshing well with University of Exeter. Second including the University of Exeter Debating Society content in the University of Exeter page may make the combined article too unwieldy and too wide ranging. Lastly I think there is sufficient notable, non-trivial and interesting content to justify a distinct Wikipedia entry for the University of Exeter Debating Society. Any more thoughts and contributions from others would be excellent?Alphaomega111 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Alphaomega, maybe I can offer some advise of what might show this society is notable. Firstly I think we need some reliable source that the debating society has existed since 1893 and for the history section as a whole. This information looks reasonable but we don't have a source for it, maybe one could be found from the university archives, a book, a newspaper clipping. Remember we need something reliable and independent as a source.. Second, the list of patrons, alumni and speakers are just trivial, are there any sources that they actually were involved? At the moment we could think this was made up. Unfortunately Hitchens blog is not an independent source. I'd image if you are involved with this society then there would be some archives which could provide some sources? Aloneinthewild (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I read the refs and they don't establish notability, mostly they mention the club in a very trivial way. My guess is that the keep votes in this afd have a coi. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and help. I have a historic knowledge of the Society but no contact with the current Society - as such I am entirely disinterested whether the article is kept, redirected or deleted. My interest for putting the case to keep the article comes from a natural curiosity over the editorial mechanism of Wikipedia. For what its worth, I continue to vote for KEEP. You are right Szzuk that many of the references don't establish notability - those references are for background and context. However, surely the Enoch Powell reference is valid? It is independent (written by the Institute of Historical Research). It has been edited and references checked by professional historians and I think does cover the Society in a non-Trivial way. The demonstration would not have occurred but for the existence of the Society and the incident directly led to a dedicated article in the Daily Telegraph at that time, not a trivial mention. Also thanks to Aloneinthewild for the help - there are many documents in the Archive at Exeter University - a weekly report on the debates was included in the annual summary of events at the University and preceding institutions back to 1893 and more recently (from the 1990's on) they do have copies of the year books published by the Society listing the Patrons, Presidents etc. Sadly I only have a couple of year books (which I could scan, it would help?) but haven't really got the time or in reality the ability to travel to Exeter and dig around in the University Archives. As I say, I'm interested in the process rather than the outcome. Alphaomega111 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (or rather redirect as suggested) -- With the possible exceptions of the Oxford and Cambridge Union Societies, I have grave doubts as to whether any such undergraduate societies are notable. I am strengthened in this view by the list of presidents only having one blue-link in it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2015 (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.