- 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 headcount isn't unequivocal, but the issues of WP:V problems and lack of substantial media coverage have not been adequately addressed by those preferring to keep the article, if at all. Sandstein 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom for deletion on basis of lack of notability. Pages on student clubs are routinely created on WP, it would seem, and just as routinely deleted - for good reason. Clubs and societies should only have WP articles if otherwise notable - which this one isn't. Otherwise, we are just providing free web hosting services and creating a misleading impression of notability.--SandyDancer 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and by the looks of it those non-wiki google hits aren't all about this club... there seems to be several Strafford Clubs --SandyDancer 12:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - If there is several then it makes this article more notable, perhaps we could include information about the others. I think it certainly is notable when one of the sources listed, and, yes, there are sources, is The Daily Telegraph.--Couter-revolutionary 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid I don't agree that a few non-notable student clubs become, if aggregated, notable. --SandyDancer 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not seem to agree with a lot. Please list why it is not notable, this article has existed for a while now and no one else has raised doubt as to its notoriety before. The article defends itslef through the fact that national newspapers have sourced it and many notable firgures belong to it.--Couter-revolutionary 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not let others comment and see what the outcome is? This is a student club. No assertion whatsoever is made that it is notable in the article, and there is a major issue with verifiability. --SandyDancer 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a non notable student club. There are not really any claims to notability in the article, so this could be speedied. But normal process is fine too. Obina 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have said why it is notable. No one is saying why it is not, other than stating that it is not. Just because you do not want it to be notable does not make it so. Couter-revolutionary 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absolutely impossible to say why something is NOT notable. Think about it! Emeraude 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is possible...one could say something such as, being quoted in The Daily Telegraph as a Monarchist Dining Club is a clear example of why they are not notable &c. Of course that is a sarcastic example, I am telling you why this Club is notbale and find it hard to see why you disagree? I think some users find it hard to believe a Club supporting the Monarchy is notable, perhaps if they were a Marxist Dining Club with numerous Comrades as members you wouldn't be so quick to question it...--Couter-revolutionary 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires judgement as all the AFD discussions show. Not all editors agree. For a club, my judgement is driven by the guidelines - multiple non trivial 3rd party sources.Obina 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. And, for the record, I would probably urge to delete the Marxist Dining Club as well, unless there were multiple non-trivial references from reliable sources stating its importance. -- Kicking222 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is The Daily Telegraph a trivial reference?--Couter-revolutionary 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is clearly trivial - the Tunnocks Caramel Cream Wafer Appreciation Society and the Ultimate Frisbee Club, also student clubs at St Andrews University, are also mentioned. The article isn't about this club - it is about the university and makes passing, tongue-in-cheek mentions of clubs Prince William might have considered joining when he enrolled at it. Are you seriously suggesting that this makes the club notable? Do you seriously contend this club is notable? If so why?--SandyDancer 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that Thomas Wentworth, after whom the club is named, is notable does not make the club notable.And repeated edits by User:Couter-revolutionary (is that how you meant to spell it?) do not change this fact.--Anthony.bradbury 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made no edits to this article other than to correct links. Please do not imply I am doctoring the information.--Couter-revolutionary 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Righto, here is why it is notable:
- It has many notable honourary members (see the article)
- It is supported (financially and otherwide) by the Constitutional Monarchy Association
- It has been in existence since 1993, it is not as if someone founded it yesterday and decided to write an article for it.
- It is one of numerous Strafford Clubs, this adds to it notariety as they exist in other universities
- It is a monarchist group with a high total membership at a major UK university.
- I do hope that's enough to get you all started--Couter-revolutionary 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 30 members really a "high total membership"? I won't bother shooting down the other points you made (none of which necessarily indicate notability), but thought it worth pointing out that one of them was factually inadequate. --SandyDancer 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has more than 30 members, there are 30 resident members, and also honourary and old members, who apparently attend. I know, for a fact, although I was not in attendance, that their 10th anniversary dinner had 48 in attendance. I have seen a photograph to prove this.--Couter-revolutionary 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 48 isn't a high membership either. --SandyDancer 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 48 people attending the dinner of a student society seems high to me..It is famous within St. Andrews too, so I've been told; I presume that's why the DT knows they exist!--Couter-revolutionary 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph article also mentioned several other clubs - and that passing reference is literally the only reference you have been able to find in a third-party source. --SandyDancer 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about:
- [1] and
- [2]. Did you bother to look for other external sources?--Couter-revolutionary 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well clearly you didn't until prompted to do so by this debate, did you? And then all you have come up with are two references which couldn't be more trival and passing if you'd tried. I only found the single mention of the club in those two articles by using a word search. The articles aren't about the club - they contain no information about it other than that it is "all male". All they demonstrate is that the club exists - existence and being connected with monarchism are not sufficient to warrant a wikipedia article. --SandyDancer 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What it shows is the Club is notbale enough for newspapers to merit mentioning it, even if it is in passing. One wonders how many references are made that aren't on the internet!--Couter-revolutionary 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article makes definite assertions of notibility. Can these be referenced? The "honorary members" would make the article notable, however, have these honorary memberships been accepted by the recipients? Encise 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
- Although I am not a member of the Club, in any form, and am not directly acquainted with it even I know, for a fact, that these honourary memberships have been accepted, they were given as a result of those personages having addressed the Club.--Couter-revolutionary 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not feel that by having notable honorary members would necessarily make any association notable, regardless of whether the nominee accepted or not. These hon memberships are meant to confer an honour upon the member to which it is granted, and the connection in the other direction is considerably weaker. The person would not have volunatarily joined the association. Furthermore, it is common practice of student political associations to have sitting members of parliament as their hon members, which does not stop consensus from deleting the former as not-notable. Ohconfucius 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a notable university society that has existed for over a decade, has mentions in the national press and has wide recognition and standing within the university. The Strafford is just as notable as most of the oxford student societies deemed important enough to have articles. An Edwardian Sunday 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the category of Oxford student societies on Wikipedia. If you think any of those fail the notability criteria, like the Strafford Club does, please nominate them for deletion too. However voting to keep this one because there are other culprits out there isn't justified. --SandyDancer 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read them all, but the ones I have I do not think fail notability criteria. The notability guidelines will often leave room for interpretation where there is none to cover specific entities (as there are, for example, for musicians). There isn't to my knowledge any particular policy regarding societies from top universities and there's a profusion of information on them, particularly in the case of those from the Ivy League in the US, that your own take on a set of guidelines isn't in line with the de facto consensus elsewhere on wikipedia. This club is, I believe, sufficiently prominent within the University, sufficiently well-known (and well-connected) outside of it, mentioned independently by the national press and involving (or having involved) a number of very public figures that it satisfies the current guidelines as I have read them. Furthermore, the article is written in an appropriate and encyclopaedic manner and couldn't be considered vanity. I found it quite interesting, and should not want to deny other readers the information it contains by, what seems to me, a rather rash case of deletionism. An Edwardian Sunday 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been referred to in passing in press articles, alongside other clubs that don't have articles. The fact they've appointed people honorary members and those people haven't written them a letter back and rudely refused doesn't denote notability. You assertion that the society is well known in the university simply isn't verified. As for the content of the article, half of it doesn't relate to the club and is a duplication of content of another article. --SandyDancer 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the media mentions I've seen of it (e.g. this article from the Scotsman) refer to it solely alongside the Kate Kennedy Club, which most certainly does have an article. And your assertion that the honorary members of the society exist merely because they 'haven't written them a letter back and rudely refused' is also completely unverified hypothesis. Now, here we come to a plain case of differing philosophy: you would simply delete the article now and let it be lost to wikipedia; I would keep it and give editors a chance to demonstrate and verify in what capacity honorary members are connected with the club - and, once this has been done, then discuss notability if there is still an issue. By all means add unverifiability tags to statements that should have them - the point of these tags is to encourage editors to add sources and avoid exactly this kind of discussion. You cannot simply create a hypothesis and use it to argue for the removal of what is, for all you can know, not shown to be non-notable. The fact that public figures do have some connection with this club should mean that we should be encouraging contributors to give more details on these connections, with references, not hastily deletionise an otherwise legitimate article on a whim. An Edwardian Sunday 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view the duration of the AFD process offers a window for verification and assertion of notability. At least one user has attempted to undertake this but has not offered convincing arguments or sources to back them up. The article has been in existence for some time, it is hardly a brand new stub. This isn't a hasty deletion - if I'd wanted that, I would have gone for speedy deletion - as one user pointed out I could have plausibly done so. --SandyDancer 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if you were to survey every single statement on wikipedia, I'd be surprised if half a precent of them are verified and sourced. Whilst articles with careful citations are of course much better and easier to work with, the fact remains that the majority of editors, for whatever reasons, tend not to do so. This does not necessarily mean that the information they provide should be removed - if it did, we'd have to delete most of wikipedia. The ((source)) tag exists for this purpose. One of the great strengths of this medium is that such sources can be later ammended when flagged as such. Now, your whole argument for deletion rests on information neither of us have. That being so, I find the case for keeping the article and allowing more people to contribute, expand and source it far more compelling than relying on your own personal revelation of supposed non-notability. The AFD process can indeed provide a window for assessing verifiability or notability, but not both in a case where one is being theorised to rely on the other. If we, for the sake of argument, were to all agree that this club is notable, then there would not be a question of verifiability. The only 'unverified' aspects of the article relevant here seem to revolve around the role played by the various notable people associated with in, in an attempt to judge whether it is sufficient that their notability should somehow rub off on the club; if notability weren't an issue, I don't believe there would be a case for deletion on the grounds of non-verifiability. Hence the whole precept upon which your argument rests is one of pure conjecture. For me to theorise the contrary would hold as much or as little water as your own theory. You have offered no sources yourself to clarify what your argument for non-notability rests on. I find not deleting an otherwise encyclopaeadic article on the grounds of an unproven conjecture a pretty convincing argument myself. An Edwardian Sunday 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not read the discussion, it is mentioned in numerous other newspaper articles too.--Couter-revolutionary 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Couter-Revolutionary, that is a very misleading statement. You have searched the entire internet and found two other articles that make entirely passing references to this club. Hardly evidence of notability, and they do nothing for verifiability which is even more important. --SandyDancer 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not searched "the entire internet", thank you very much.--Couter-revolutionary 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When you use Google, you search (more or less) the entire internet. That is what a good search engine does. So, yes, you did search the entire internet. --SandyDancer 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As academic as this argument is, I only viewed the first, perhaps five, pages of the Google search.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll save you the bother. If you search "Strafford Club" St Andrews, and exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors you are only left with two pages of hits - see here --SandyDancer 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. There are 42 hits on the Google page! Although I would still be hesitant to argue, as you both appear to have accepted, that newspaper articles are the sole judge of notability.
I have been following your arguments and as an old member of this club can help:
1. This club is a well known feature of St Andrews, both the town and the University. The Club is known to major national institutions as well as students from Universities around the country. It is a major part of University life and carries on a tradition of similar clubs at the University of St Andrews and elsewhere.
2. 30 members a year at a University equates to about 160 overall since the early 90s. It is not larger because numbers are capped and there are strict entry criteria. None the less, having few members is not necessarily a bar to notability. There are continually growing membership numbers and considerable old member involvement (including Annual London meetings). Unlike many student societies, members are expected to take an active part in the Club or resign.
3. Private Clubs are often not keen to release details and finding a club that does should be encouraged. Privacy may also play a part in the limited press coverage.
4. The page does name several Hon. members and I have been to meetings where most of those mentioned (and others who are not) have attended. Applicants are always present when they are made members, so all listed will have attended and know what the Club is about.
5. The information on Wentworth on this page is written in the context of his relevance to this and other Strafford Clubs. It is not a repeat of another page.
6. This is a small but growing club. It has links to other areas of interest such as other Strafford Clubs, Wentworth, Monarchy, student societies, the Hon. Members and Constitutional Monarchy Association. I believe that the pages are of genuine interest and unlike some student societies they go far beyond mere vanity.
7. These pages have been around for a bit of time and are clearly looked at and have been evolved. By all means please use the information above to edit the pages and make them more relevant. Deleting them would remove an interesting article and damage the freedom of information that Wikipedia is supposed to stand up for. 19:06, 30th November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)
- I disagree. The Bullingdon Club has had several press articles written about it. The Strafford Club, seemingly, has never enjoyed such attention: it appears it has never received anything other than a couple of passing references in articles about something else related to St Andrews university.
- The assertion that this club is notable in the university in town isn't a verified one, and in any case probably (in fact certainly) wouldn't meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability or verifiability.
- I'd point out to those drawn to this page out of membership or affection for the club - these deletion debates aren't head counts (and even if they were, this article would still be deleted by the looks of it). You have to justify why the article meets Wikipedia's standards and therefore should be kept. This one clearly doesn't make the cut. --SandyDancer 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fact is we have no idea of proving what's been written about the Strafford Club, just because it isn't on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been done. We need to remember this danger. And can I point out also to those wanting to delete this article due to a dislike of the Club and its aims that this is not a head count. It all works both ways.--Couter-revolutionary 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of notability has been verified by every writer on this page who has visited St Andrews or has been at the University. If you look at the Google search pages the Strafford Club is mentioned in numerous contexts throughout University life, also making it clearly verifiable. It is also true to say that the internet is not the only basis for veritably or notability, the club itself has produced publications which are unavailable on the internet. As I pointed earlier the club is known to a wider audience outside St Andrews, including a number of prominent members and national organisations, besides being part of a wider network of undergraduate dining clubs, many of whom refuse to release any information.
- KEEP Have a look at the links for the named members, very unusual and prominent for a student society. Sandy Dancer appears to have campaigned against Wiki sites regarding Monarchy. Is this an argument about notability or content? If Sandy Dancer is Republican then it would be logical that the article would appear non-notable to him/her. Not the same conclusion that many others would come to. This looks like an attempt to supress freedom of expression, all veiws should be allowed to be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)
- Presumably this user isn't aware of the convention of signing and ought not be penalised as such. What they are saying is valuable all the same.--Couter-revolutionary 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies. I'm not a regular techie on Wikipedia, I only get involved when I really think it matters. I do strongly feel that this article is of sufficient interest to keep, I like to see people standing up for their opinions, no matter how crazy or tongue in cheek. I hope that you will find my earlier argument logical. 4.50pm, 1st December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk • contribs)
- I realised, and quite agree with what you say.--Couter-revolutionary 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You quite agree with an argument based entirely on disregard for Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and notability? You agree that consistently not signing comments in a vain attempt to try and influence a debate by appearing to be more than one person? This same anon IP has already posted several times above as the edit history shows. And the speculation about my motives is nonsense. I am not a "republican", I have no strong view either way - hardly an issue in my life. I do however oppose relentless pro-monarchist POV pushing of the kind you favour however. User:Couter-revolutionary, User:Edwardian Sunday and this anon. IP (213.86.132.225) are the only people not to opt for delete here. However, by posting multiple times you may create the impression of a lack of consensus. I hope the admin who closes this debate bears that in mind. --SandyDancer 11:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because users are not overly enthusiastic contributers it doesn't mean what they say here is not of note. Stop trying to rule this page like a Junta. The user with the IP address has stated that they did not know of the convention to sign a contribution. What they say is valuable and should be taken not of. If he were to have said he wanted this article deleted would you ask it to be disregarded as he had not signed the contribution, I think not. I have not contacted any one else to support my views this page, I hope user Sandydancer has not either. Yes, I do have point to view, and yes you did trick me into displaying it on my Talk page. It still doesn't influence my editing, you maybe are influenced by your PoV, some of us aren't.--Couter-revolutionary 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.