Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of York Conservative and Unionist Association


 * 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. unsourced and this is the crucial policy based argument for article inclusion. The keep votes have not overcome this and are not arguing from a policy based position so the consensus is to delete Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

University of York Conservative and Unionist Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG as there are no Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar hits.

Lots looks like WP:OR and large parts also fail WP:V Codf1977 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Codf1977 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion was suggested on the discussion page some time ago and various contributors have attempted to increase the number of references to verify much of what is said. As a historical group, many of the activities of the group have extremely limited online references which has made this process slow. The article directly links to three further pages which are extremely similar in nature to this one, none of which have been suggested for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_York_Conservative_and_Unionist_Association#See_also. There is absolutely no doubt that the article needs further verification but that should not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.66.180 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However none of that address the Nomination, in that it fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG, can you proved any links to coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the group is national in the scope of its activities, having been the foundation for many high-profile political and politics-related careers. The problem is verifying that and providing links to what would be considered to be genuine third-party sources, something the various contributors have made progress in doing and still are attempting to do. Many of the sections of this article do have references as suggested, yet it is the proposal to delete the entire article due to certain sections lacking verification that is wrong. Deletion of this article in its entirity would merely destroy the excellent work put in for it to then be re-written. Better get the facts in and await verification than remove the article because of some items lacking verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.66.180 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010(UTC)
 * The scope of the activities is defined not by what past members go on to do, but by where the Association itself functions, and unless the name is misleading that is York. I can not see how this is anything more than a local branch of a political party, I have done searches for references to it (there are links at the top of this page for you to try as well) and can find nothing - no one else is writing about the Association. I really can't see how this article can be saved, If you want to to see if the Article incubator can help then try that. Codf1977 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is an excellent reference guide to the history of a 40 year old University political association, an organisation in which many members of parliament (e.g. Chloe Smith, Paul Goodman, Harvey Proctor), business, journalism (e.g. Michael Brown, Jonathan Isaby), and public affairs practitioners cut their teeth. There is public value in this entry remaining on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.48.166 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, how does address the main point of the nomination, that is the fact there does not appear to be any coverage of the Association and as such it fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG, can you proved any links to coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted to generate input from established users. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear that any reliable sources exist. If they do, please provide them. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate. As suggested above, this article should be incubated as nobody has argued that there is a problem with the article besides a lack of online sources. This will allow time for users to seek sources and edit the article accordingly. Again, there is no similar discussion taking place on any of the three other groups of this kind, all of which are linked to from this article. Why is the deletion of OUCA not being discussed, when OUCA is, by its own admission, a local branch of a political party, whereas the University of York Conservative and Unionist Association is independent of the national Conservative Party?
 * 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.