Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Universal Society Union

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. The arguments to "keep" do not sufficiently address the principal reason for deletion. According to the notability guideline for organisations, an organisation is notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources (that are independent of the subject). Evidence of such coverage was not presented and various comments in the discussion suggest that it does not exist yet. If/when such sources become available, the article may be undeleted/recreated. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Universal Society Union

Oxford Universal Society Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable and not very purposeful student group with a name intentionally chosen to create confusion with Oxford University Student Union. -- RHaworth 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Oxford Union -- KTC

• Delete nn student society. KTC 08:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 08:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable student society. Timrollpickering 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete. It is a growing and influential Society which already has several members of Oxford Staff on its books, including a lecturer. Has an official stall at the Freshers' Fair, and holds regular, and well-attended meetings. Crosses between many (or in fact all) colleges and has embarked on a publicity campaign to further raise members. With nearly 200 official members, it is more "notable" than various other societies which have wikipedia entries. Perhaps it is being discriminated against due to its jeunesse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.52.103 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007

• For a Wikipedia article, we need the subject to be Notable and Verifiable by secondary source. Being a big society within the university, have staff members doesn't make it notable outside the unviersity. Neither does official stall at Oxford's FW Fair, that comes part with being a university society. KTC 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Very minor student organisation. It's not being discriminated against, it just isn't notable to anyone apart from its members. Any articles about similar societies should also be deleted, but Wikipedia depends on volunteers to identify such articles, and they aren't all caught immediately. Beorhtric 20:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's unique precisely because it has "a name intentionally chosen to create confusion with Oxford University Student Union." It's a satirical society constantly growing in awareness that is an anti OUSU/Union. It's unique in not charging a joining/membership fee, and in the method of electing a president (certainly among Oxford University societies). It has promoted the recognition of important issues of equality and discrimination (founder's motion to Lincoln JCR concerning the VP(Women) debate that recently caused trouble within the student union. This article should stay. Wadhamite 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Uniqeuness within the university does not necessarily make it Notable. It may be doing great work, or stirring up great interest within the university, the question is does anyone else especially in terms of Verifiable secondary sources care? KTC 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps there could be a stay of execution until the start of Michaelmas term? Secondary sources won't be available until then, but as another user (sign your name next time?) pointed out, if will be in a verifiable secondary freshers fair and Oxford Handbook material. Wadhamite 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• But does that makes it notable enough for inclusion? This community decided sometime that being university society by itself does not make it notable, I mean it's currently going in a direction that says the whole student union/guild/association body may not be notable enough for inclusion. It may or may not be the case in Oxford, but there will be at least quite a few university where any and all officially recognized societies appears in the SU's material. That's just come as part of being recognized. Those should not / cannot count as independent secondary source. KTC 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not only is this society notable in the fact that it's the first union that is completely free in the sense that not only does it not charge to join, but it does also not use all of your JCR's money (which OUSU does), the claim that it is an article created intended to cause confusion is wrong, in my opinion, as the article itself states that O.U.S.U is not to be confused with OUSU. I agree with Wadhamite that the article should stay. Lessthanthree 07:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sourced case for notability, lacks adequate context in the section that attempts to distinguish itself from the rest of the cat. No sources readily available in a news search. Will gladly switch to keep if case for notability under WP:ORG could be made and backed up with secondary/tertiary sources. MrZaius^talk 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Primary critereon is that a third party has written about the organisation. As the Society has a stall at the Oxford Freshers' Fair, it must therefore feature in the Guide to the Freshers' Fair with relevant information about the society. It therefore fulfills that criteria. The only objection now can be as to the extent of the coverage - a prima facie case for keeping the page has been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.243.196.177 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're missing the exception part of that criterion. The information in a fresher information provided by the SU / university count as trivial coverage and primary source. Being feature in the information is part of being at the FW Fair, which is part of being a recognized society. That and only that does not make the society notable. If we're going down this route, I can list around 200 societies from my university that will immediately qualify for inclusion as notable, and I'm sure there's thousands more if we start looking at other university. KTC 09:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although one could argue there is a lack of tertiary and secondary source information on the society, is this unexpected with it being under four months old? Since it's creation it has had regular meetings, two elections and contains a growing number of members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.72.40 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until and unless it pass the notability requirement, it's not for inclusion. Read my above comment. If just having regular meeting, election for societies' positions and actually having some members is good enough for inclusion, I'm sure we can then just about include every student societies in existence, plus the many many other non-student body that's going to use the argument. KTC 09:10, 8 August 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.