Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Automobile Club

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 Speedy keep. Notable, nomination was withdrawn. —Moondyne 14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge University Automobile Club

Cambridge University Automobile Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Non-notable student society: the University of Cambridge has scores of societies of equal or greater stature. Talk page says "Welcome to the Wiki for Cambridge University Automobile Club" contradicting Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I now think this article should be kept, see below. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete I was very disappointed to receive this nomination for deletion mere hours after submitting my first entry to Wikipedia.

Your grounds for deletion rest on the following observations:

1. It is a "Non-notable student society: the University of Cambridge has scores of societies of equal or greater stature"

2. Talk page says "Welcome to the Wiki for Cambridge University Automobile Club" contradicting Wikipedia is not a webspace provider

Let me address these now:

1. I would certainly contest the claim that CUAC is a 'non-notable' student society. Founded in 1902 it is the second oldest Automobile Club in Great Britain. Part of the purpose of beginning a Wiki for CUAC was an endeavour to assemble the early history of a club that played an important role in British motor sport.

I understand that several prominent racing drivers of the early 20th Century were CUAC members, such as Dick Seaman and Archie Scott-Thomas. I will add reference to this in the Wiki once I have obtain material to support this information that meets Wikipedia's criteria for citing sources.

One historical fact that I have been able to verify concerns CUAC's role in re-starting motor sport in Britain post-WWII when it organised the first motor race in Great Britain after the end of the war. On those grounds alone CUAC merits an inclusion in Wikipedia.

2. That specific phrase in the Talk Page had been deleted. CUAC has its own web site and the Wiki is not an attempt to duplicate that. (Incidentally, if you look at the rest of the remarks in the Talk Page you will see that there are nurmerous avenues of historical investigation that are being pursued to develop the Wiki in line with point one.)

Fasterthansound 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• If this society has a long and interesting history, the article should focus on that, which is now given a mere four lines, and it should be based at least in part on published sources independent of the society, to show that its activities have attracted outside interest. The names of the current office-holders are not really of interest to anyone, except, possibly, the current members, and should be removed. Upp◦land 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Uppland. If the article were rewritten to remove the list of office holders and details of regular meetings, and instead describe the society's history using independent sources as much as possible, I for one would be happy to keep it.

I notice that you keep saying "a Wiki for CUAC". This is not a wiki for CUAC: this is an encyclopaedia. I think this is the core of the problem. If you were to rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article, not as if it were a home page or a societies' fair flyer, I think people would be happy to keep it.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this article (and by extension myself) are being treated unnecessarily harshly. The piece is factually based, corroborated and there is a stack of links in the discussion section that show that I fully intend to expand on the history of the club (which I have now moved to the top of the article). Given the state of many other articles I've seen on Wikipedia I never thought for one second that this would get such a poor reception.

I don't know where you assume the authority to make comments like "The names of the current office-holders are not really of interest to anyone" when we're talking about a club that is over one hundreds years old and in that time would have had a large number of members who, I would hope, through Wikipedia, could help add to this article and form a detailed history of the club.

You tell me to "rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article". It is written as an encyclopaedia article - it's straight, factual and not opinionated.

If you want to delete it, fine, delete it, and I won't bother contributing to any Wikipedia articles any more. But I think using a few pedantic niggles as grounds for deletion is over the top. Fasterthansound 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not being unfair. I have not recommended deletion of this article (look at other Articles for deletion discussions, where you will see people beginning their statements with a bold-faced "delete"), as I can easily imagine that the topic has potential. But stressing the age as a significant aspect of the notability, while saying almost nothing about that history, seems paradoxical. Do you really think the names of the current treasurer or webmaster should be a significant part of an article on a society that is over a century old? Are they more important to the society than, say, the so-far unnamed people who took the initiative to found the Club back in 1902? Upp◦land 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't and plainly I am not making that case. As I have said so above I fully intend to expand on the history section but finding detailed material to back it all up with (in line with Wikipedia citations standards) is not easy. Hence the material in the Discussions section and the appeal for more information. But all you seem to be interested in regarding that is that I committed the heinous semantic crime of using the phrase "a Wiki for CUAC".

At any rate I don't see the same argument being used against the Hawks' Club (for example) for listing their past five Presidents and Hon. Secretaries.

Nor did I say you were being "unfair". I am saying you are wrong.

If you don't mind I would rather vest the time I choose to spend on Wikipedia expanding this article as I have already said rather than arguing about it. If you are going to delete it in the meantime, at least do me the courtesy of getting it out of the way sooner rather than later so I know not to waste my time with it any more. Fasterthansound 12:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are a newbie and excused for not understanding the intricacies of Wikipedia. Unless you are writing on something where the significance is obvious to the average Wikipedia editor (George W. Bush, Paris, iron, whatever), you really have to be paranoid about someone nominating the page for deletion and forestall that already when you create an article. You need to think about it from the point of view of a skeptical outsider with no prior knowledge of your particular topic or its importance. I would suggest that you restart this page in your userspace (as a subpage of your userpage, like this: User:Fasterthansound/CUAC) and work on it at your leisure until it is ready to be reposted. If the nominator agrees, the article could be moved there (in Wikipedia jargon that is called "userfying"). It may still get deleted at some point in the future if it is kept around as-is and not improved, but you will get plenty of time to work on it before that happens.

Please note that I am not trying to get your article deleted. On the contrary, I am trying to tell you what you should consider to avoid that. And yes, you should not waste your time debating here, but work on improving the article. Upp◦land 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I've changed my mind. You've persuaded me that this club is notable. But I strongly urge you to rewrite the article along the lines Uppland and I have been suggesting. Talk more about the history of the club and some of its famous previous members: the article itself must make clear why the club is not just another student society, or it's likely to get nominated for deletion by someone else.

I don't know how to withdraw this nomination, or even whether it can be closed before a certain time has passed, so I'll wait for an admin to do that.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Technically it should wait out the seven days, but I think in this case, a speedy closure is the best outcome so we can move forward. The club is notable IMV, the article however needs some work as suggested above. —Moondyne 14:47, 11 December 2006 (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.