Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Surrey Students' Law 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Surrey Students' Law Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Student groups are not inherently notable. There's nothing in this article that shows notability and I can't find reliable sources to show notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite This student group is just as notable as any other student group that has established pages on Wikipedia (for example UCL Law Society ). There is verifiable evidence for all the information given which can be found in other publications (especially hard - not online publications), and its significance is further augmented by the fact that it is an integral part of the student experience at one of the highest ranked UK universities. Furthermore, it includes more references, citations, and sources that show notability than other pages of the same ilk, like Cambridge University Law Society. Therefore I suggest we should Keep the article but suggest ways it could be improved. Conyemenam (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep University of Surrey is a rising university with a strong student body, there is no reason why this page should be deleted. In regards to the lack of reliable sources, neither UCL nor Cambridge University Law Society Wikipedia pages have "reliable sources of notability." Should it be decided that this page be deleted, it should only be fair that other society Wikipedia pages also be deleted for the same reason.131.227.138.76 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — 131.227.138.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep This wiki page should stay as it's informative for new and potential students looking to come to Surrey to study Law from all over the world. It is very similar to other Law society wikipedia pages like Cambridge University Law Society and The Law Society, University College Cork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.34.20 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC) — 131.227.34.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - They haven't done anything.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The couple of press releases offered as references are not evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. The best I could find was this brief interview with someone who had been involved in the society but that does not discuss that particular society in itself. Fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite Student law societies are historically important parts of the English legal profession. There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one. The number of distinguished former members must be quite enormous. This is not just an average student society. Per the comments above; not an average student society. Give the editors a chance to improve the article. Conyemenam (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding your assertion that "There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one" please provide evidence. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also notice you have already provided a "Keep and rewrite" opinion earlier in the discussion, so I have struck the second !vote. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * strong delete no notability established beyond the university. Thus failing WP:ORG. The swarming of anon IP single purpose voters just confirms the lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: I choose this route to see if any replies can sway my opinion. I like that we are admonished not to "vote". I do see this article is referenced as opposed to the mentioned Cambridge University Law Society. My comments concerning that can be seen at Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Law Society (2nd nomination). I do have somewhat of a problem with "Give the editors a chance to improve the article." and "There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one". "Cambridge University Law Society" was created in 2006, survived an Afd over 8 1/2 years ago with similar statements, and look at it today. It was commented "no notability established beyond the university". If the Irish Times is considered reliable that is not actually the case with The Law Society, University College Cork or with this article if the same is true with the reliability of this reference.
 * The issue per ORGDEPTH is a stipulation that a criteria would be "significant coverage" that includes "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.". A marginally persuasive argument could be seen with "it's informative for new and potential students looking to come to Surrey to study Law from all over the world". Wikipedia as well as editors certainly champions education. I am a proponent of local prominence but notability should not be argued because of subjective importance nor an assumption (or indirect reference) that it is inherited. An article can be edited during this discussion so it would not be against the "rules" for interested editors to find some relevant reliable sources, include them, then I would say go do the same on the other above articles. I bet you thought I was going to say "well done" --- and I might. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2014 (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.