Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Conservative 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford University Conservative Association

Oxford University Conservative Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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 and the has been some internal controversy. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A society is not of itself famous just because it has had members in the past who are now notable. Named past members - Thatcher, Heath, Ress-Mogg etc - were not themselves notable at the time of their membership. If a currently notable leading politician were a current member then notability might be argued (although even then it would not necessarily be agreed) but this is not the case. Non-notable, therefore.--Anthony.bradbury 13:00, 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)
• Delete per comments above. Nothing in the article to assert their importance over any other student society. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Many student societies are certainly non-notable, but this one probably is. It has an 80-year history and is the student branch of a leading political party in one of the leading universities, from which a great many leading politicins have come. I note there are similar deletion requests for the equivalents in two other universities. I have not yet considered these. Peterkingiron 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article claims "OUCA's reputation has been tarnished in recent years by a number of controversies, which have attracted press coverage both within Oxford University and in some cases in the national press". In that case, it shouldn't be difficult to show notability, should it? EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Major association in current and historical UK politics. With respect to historical notability, ck lede paragraph for list of members. Contrary to some of the above comments, once notable, always notable or else we are not building a general encyclopedia. It should not be necessary to defend this. None of the Kings of France or Roman Emperors are notable currently either. ( For the present day, the current figures listed above are N too. Really N members or alumni are enough to make a school notable, or even a club. Obviously no currently active politician is currently a member, it's a student society--though even here there have been some who were already N as members, including Thatcher and Disraeli.) It could probably be argued that this is historically more important than the two London Univ. ones, so each should be considered on its own merit. I added a book ref, and a journal article about its past notability. DGG 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG.—Carolfrog 05:17, 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.
  • WP:AGF, please. EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Association has long been considered a recruiting ground for future senior Tories. Whilst the internal controversies of a student political organisation are not inherently notable, they are when they affect a local election. New Progressive 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per DGG above MikeMorley 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG, though article does need improved focus on history of the society rather than current status --Martin Wisse 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing notable here. Anything notable that its former members have done needs to go in their respective articles. The rest of this is just self-referential citations about infighting and other non-notable events. --Mus Musculus 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Much of the rubbish about infighting and recent scandals ought to be deleted, and much of it needs citation, but OUCA is almost certainly the most notable non-debating student society in the UK, and therefore, clearly deserves an article. Strong precedents are set by the keep votes in AfD for Cambridge Universities Labour Club, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, Oxford Law Society, Out of the Blue (Oxford University), Piers Gaveston Society, and Oxford University Cave Club (and weaker precedents in the form of 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, and York Student Television). Surely, if the Oxford caving and law societies deserve to stay, the OUCA does! Bastin 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for pointing that one out - yes, OUCA probably does deserve to stay, but that caving club doesn't! EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia shouldn't be limited only to major societies, and since OUCA has had a demonstrable importance in recruiting senior past and present national figures, it should stay. Hackloon 15:54, 14 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.