Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coningsby 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 delete. WP:V concerns weren't met in this AFD Secret ^account 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coningsby Club

Coningsby Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails to establish notablilty. No references and nothing much on Google on this club. Are dining clubs notable ? Hammer1980·^talk 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More from the one-man anti-dining clubs crusader. If gentlemen's clubs get an article, so do these. Several in fact have articles of their own on Wikipedia. You must have heard of at least the Bullingdon Club! Grunners 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not on a crusade. Please see Wikipedia:Civility as there is no need to patronise. I haven't heard of the Bullingdon Club but reading the article shows that some notable people have been a member of it. This article fails to establish the notability of the Coningsby Club. The articles for the Coefficients (dining club) and Square Club (writers) have a similar problem. Just because I haven't heard of them does not mean they are not notable, but the articles as they stand do not explain to me why they are. Hammer1980·^talk 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The way of Wikipedia is that new articles do take time to build up steam and become really good informative articles. I'd suggest in the interests of civility you enquire as to the nature of a user's article before slapping tags everywhere. That is extremely disrespectful. Grunners 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging an article is not disrespectful. Accusing an editor (whilst attempting to canvass support for you artciles) of a "one man campaign being waged against dining clubs" is bordering on WP:Attack. Seven editors have been contacted with that message at the time of this post. I have posted the artciles to afd for a debate, the outcome of which I really am not going to lose any sleep over. I will not be dragged further discussions of this type. Hammer1980·^talk 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless attribution of notability is shown via independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete pending references. Dining clubs, or any type of "social and discussion clubs", do not attain notability just because some notable people have been asserted to be members. Are there reliable independent sources to cite? The nominator's search seems not to have turned up such sources, and the article has nothing to substantiate any real claim to notability. As for Grunners' comment, a speedy-delete without asking contributors or doing any research would have been "disrespectful"; but use of tags like citation-needed, and eventually an AfD after an attempt at finding citeable sources, is reasonable and appropriate. Effort would be better spent on finding and providing sources than on acting offended and canvassing in tones that disregard whether the tagging was policy-based. Barno 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. "Are dining clubs notable?" What a strange question. Are political parties notable? Are cricket teams notable? Some are, and some aren't, just like anything else; this one is fairly old and well-known I believe, not that I know anything much about dining societies. As far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong with alerting people to the fact that a debate is in progress that they may be interested in witnessing or joining. There's also nothing wrong with nominating articles for deletion, but one should have be pretty sure that an article is a no-hoper. A quick Google would surely have established that this is hardly a clear candidate for speedy deletion, a fairly extreme measure which can lead to a little-watched, but perfectly sound entry disappearing in hours, before people have even had time to become aware of what's happenening, and which should thus be used with restraint. There's no shortage of genuine nonsense added every day to keep people busy who want to make deleting stuff their mission. Flapdragon 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It isn't notable in the sense of getting into the news, but it has been the main social link between national Conservative politics and Oxbridge student politics. I've added a couple of independent references. --Paularblaster 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep - a club that has succeeded in existing for over 85 years is likely to be noteworthy, and hence notable. It is properly marked as a stub, and I hope that some one will be abel to expand it. It appears in another encyclopaedia, whose publisher is an academic one. Peterkingiron 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure if one is meant to add support on a deletion discussion page only if one has new points to make, but I agree with the previous two entries.45ossington 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete how can it be kept with no information about notable members, no real references, and the only link being to the announcement for their next dinner. The claimed references are a mention of its existence in a history of the university, and a listing in a directory. I know it's notable is not a sufficient argument. Things that don't happen to "get into the news" can be sometimes be important none the less, but sometimes otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to this last one, all the negatives you point out are due to the article's stub nature. Let's give it time to grow I say. After all, the gentlemens club article which I started is now large, but for a while was quite small with few references. Grunners (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article will only grow with time if there are reliable sources that give this club substantial coverage. Passing mentions as a trivial detail about someone, where the reference's focus is on events unrelated to the club, aren't enough for an article. Handwaving that sources "must exist" needs to be followed up with actual research to actually find and cite the references. "Succeeded in existing" and being a "main social link" wouldn't be much of a claim to notability even if mentioned in independent sources. With no sources offered in a week, it doesn't mean that there are none, but it seems to indicate that we don't currently have enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm leaning toward "merge into Dining club"; it can always be broken back out later when (if) some actual nontrivial sources are found. And no, nobody is trying to speedy-delete this stub; this AfD has been left open beyond the five-day minimum to give people a chance to solve the little problem of not meeting the core WP:V policy. Barno (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to the apparent WP:V issues related to the article. I'm sure no one would mind if this article were to be recreated at a later date if better sources can be located. RFerreira (talk) 21:18, 9 December 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.