Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopsoc

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecopsoc

Delete in line with convention of not listing non-notable university clubs. EcopSoc is not notable outside of its discipline. Sumple 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please cite that convention. New South Wales University Theatrical Society and Studio Four are two such clubs that have survived AFD. I'm sure there are countless others. čĥàñľōŕď 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Delete as unverifiable čĥàñľōŕď 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Article seems to be confused as to whether it refers to the Political Economy course at the University of Sydney or the students association for students in the course. If the latter, we would need some verifiable evidence that Mark Latham and Anthony Albanese were members rather than merely students in the course to consider a keep. If the former, should be merged with the University of Sydney. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does not appear to be an officially registered club/society: University of Sydney Union Club Directory --Sumple 10:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination and nn-club. Mushroom 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The club is hardly very notable, given that half the tiny article is about the department, rather than the club! JPD (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And those two examples Chanlord listed above should probably be merged with the school. Unfortunately, both those and the school article are a bit of a mess, so doing so would be more work than it should be. -R. fiend 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that it isn't registered and its non-notability are influential factors. enochlau (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 07:34, 5 February 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.