Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull University Labour Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Shanel 06:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hull University Labour Club

This was speedied as an 'nn club'. But it is certainly not a speedy - I've undeleted and sending here for completeness. University political societies are the breeding grounds for British politicians, and often mentioned in their bios. It is not just that famous people attended these, but that their political affliliations and often allegiences were formed in these places. They are at least as notable as schools and minor bands (which we keep). Hull itself boasts the current UK deputy Prime Minister, a deputy leader of the labour party (and previous Chancellor of the Exchequer) plus three other MP's (and that is just from the article). If that is not an assertion of notability what is?--Doc ask? 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep as above. --Doc ask? 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would you like me to start a "Brock Young Liberals" article? --OntarioQuizzer 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if you can persuade two deputy Prime ministers to join - be my guest. --Doc ask? 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the Karen (Pokémon)-importance test (WP:KIT). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 22:35
    • Which you have just invented :) --kingboyk 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've been using it for a while, as have a couple others. I just got around to creating the page :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 22:53
        • I've redirected that article as it was hopeless! Probably somebody will revert at which point I might AFD it. --kingboyk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The current activities of a bunch of students in a club doesn't belong on WP (and I am a student too). I don't think a list of alumni adds anything either. --kingboyk 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I speedy deleted it earlier. My reasoning was working it backwards; should all clubs/groups that these people have been affiliated with get an article simply because they happened to be affiliated with it? The nature of universities means there's a pretty good chance that any club that's been around for a few decades is going to have at least one notable alumni. I don't think this counts as grounds for inclusion. If the group itself is notable for something, not just the later fame of its alumni, then I think there's a case. But, I don't see anything like that in this article. The article claims it is "well known...for it's rebellious nature", attended a rally, and did some campaigning. Google test on this article's subject shows 9 hits. I don't see anything here that strikes me as being notable. Compare to Skull and Bones which has notable alumni but has also frequently been in the press, especially in the last couple of years. --Durin 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Addendum: George W. Bush was in Cub Scouts when he was a child. Based on the criteria that a group is notable because it has notable alumni, should we have an article on his Cub Scout den? What about a biography on his den mother? It's like saying an article on a place where Lincoln slept is notable because Lincoln slept there. I don't believe association is sufficient for notability, unless that association is somehow influential to the person's later fame/notability. --Durin 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you quote it properly, it says "well known among Labour Students", not just "well known..." as you paraphrased. The main argument is that Oxford and Cambridge uni Lab clubs have one. Either we should all be allowed one or no one should.
    • Durin, that is a valid opinion, although I think it is wrong. But it was not valid to speedy this! A7 requires 'no assertion of notability' and even a borderline assertion requires an AfD. Two deputy PMs is certainly an assertion of notability (most school articles would die for such notable alumni) --Doc ask? 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. You don't speedy articles that assert importance, as A7 says. This was an abuse of A7 (though these are becoming very common). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 22:54
  • Abuse is a bit strong of a word. Did I make an error? Perhaps. Abuse? That implies conscious, reasoned knowledge that I was violating A7. That did not happen. Let's ratchet back the rhetoric, ok? As for them being known as being rebellious, how about a cite for such a claim? Failing that cite, that's potentially POV. Though I grant that a speedy might have been premature, I fully stand by my vote. And yes, I do think similar organizations shouldn't have an article unless the organization is notable for reasons other than the later fame of their alumni. Alternatively, if the alumni reference the organization as a major reason for their later fame, then that could be sufficient. But, no such claims have been made here that I see. --Durin 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They've been nominated for deletion too. --kingboyk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per durin -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. But again, the current executive committee is only of internal interest. u p p l a n d 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't believe that the HULC has any notability other than a few MPs being previous members 20/30/40 years ago when they were students. Did Prescott (or indeed anyone), while a member, take part in any significant newsworthy activity? If so, this is worthy of an article. If not, this is just a society at university. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. *drew 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! This article isn't doing anyone any harm, and lets face it, if we claim it is not 'encyclopaedic' - well, so what, neither is half the stuff on Wikipedia, its' just a few kids messing around - leave them to it, at least they've got an interest in Politics which is more than can be said for most teenagers!!! Besides, I don't hear anyone complaining about Oxford and Cambridges' prescence!! - Helen. (Politically active and Proud!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.2 (talk • contribs)
  • You should do, because as I said above, the Cambridge and Oxford entries have been listed for deletion too! Wikipedia is not a place for kids to be messing around, by the way. --kingboyk 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a weak article as it stands, but the list of alumni assures notability, and the article is less than two days old. If it can say something about the political development of important Labour figures like Hattersley and Prescott, then it's a valuable article. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I do not go to Oxford, or Cambridge, nor do I live in England. And yet I still voted to delete. I don't smell conspiracy at all. --Andy Saunders 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am a gap-year student and will be attending Hull University in September. I found this article very informative and so I voted to keep. Surely the very fact that this information is useful to someone gives it the mandate to stay. (ChrisACS 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep What's the big deal? it's just a bit of information, who cares if YOU don't think it's important? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 163.1.231.149 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 January 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.