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 problem with the lack of reliable sources (of which their "Official Inter-web site" [sic] is not one) has not been properly addressed by those who have argued otherwise. Sandstein 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Monarchists[edit]

Delete - perhaps speedyable but a proper debate is never a bad thing. No assertions of notability - almost certainly not notable. No sources, much of the articles content is probably unverifiable (and there are major NPOV issues in any event). Recently pages on far more notable student societies have been deleted, e.g. Oxford Belles. I also happen to know that the King Charles Club, mentioned in the first para is not the same as this club and still existed just five years ago in St John's College. --SandyDancer 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article makes it quite clear that this society is not the same as that dining club of St. John's college. The sources for much of the material in this article are the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, more specifically the John Johnston collected of paper ethemeria. The website of the society is also a source. That the Oxford Belles, a women's singing group, could be compared with a society that has existed for more than a century is absurd. The Oxford Monarchists have many notable former members, not least Edward Heath, a former Prime Minster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.90.229 (talk • contribs)
• Query whether the club actually exists... see this google search, using "oxford monarchists" -wikipedia' as a search term - offers up two (yes, that's just two hits), both from answers.com, a WP mirror site... a hoax methinks. --SandyDancer 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You're being hasty again. This society is mentioned in Hansard (Warren Hawksley MP MP saying that Sir John Stokes MP was a past president), amongst others (e.g. the Guardian). If you don't event search references to its official name, of course you won't find any. It's also notable enough for the Bodleian Library to catalogue publications received from this society, along with verifiably stating "This group was founded as the Tercentenary Society in 1960 and became the Oxford University Monarchist society in 1968. The current name was adopted in 1989". An Edwardian Sunday 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link to the Bodleian Library - which is a copyright library containing everything that is published in Britain and accepts deposits of docs from every club and society in Oxford - provides no indication of notability. Passing references in an obit and a parliamentary debate are just those - passing references. And when you say I didn't google search under the official name - fine - lets try that - Five hits, excluding Wikipedia and its mirror Answers.com. --SandyDancer 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite. I happen to know for an absolute fact that this Society exists, which I think now has been proven sufficiently. It is an important socity,endorsed by many notable individuals and has included, in its membership many notables. I think the history, patronage and membership are enough to save this article alone; not to mention those who have attended events; Crown Prince Leka II of Albania, the King of The Tunisians &c.--Couter-revolutionary 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiable but non-notable student society, like many thousands of others in Oxford and Cambridge alone. If it has members who went on to be notable, mention in their articles (if their membership was important to their careers). That some minor aristocrats attended its events does not make it notable. That the Bodleian catalogues its publications does not make it notable - Bodley, as a copyright library, receives and catalogues everything published in the UK. And as a final point, the article as it stands reads as an in-joke (consider the absurd frothing about Edward Heath) not an encyclopedia article. Sam Clark 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I hardly consider Royalty to be "minor aristocrats", they aren't aristocrats at all; they are Royalty. Nor do I consider aristocrats with writs of summons to be minor either for that matter. Your contempt clearly shows your PoV. A society which has existed for over one hundred years and can count politicians, a Prime Minister, no less, amongst its Presidents is not "non-notable". If you think this article needs a clean-up that is what it perhaps needs, not deletion.--Couter-revolutionary 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No contempt for the society felt or intended: if you object to 'minor' I happily withdraw it, but 'aristocrat' is perfectly normal as a description of a royal. Further response to your arguments below. Sam Clark 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Prefect of the OMs I can testify to the notability of the society both within and without the University of Oxford, a notability perhaps which would not be clear to people not of the University. Or women, who we do not permit to be members. That the society has existed since 1884 (see the website of the OMs and the papers in Bodley (NB: the actual archives not just the web-site detailing them (which is incorrect in its assertion that foundation was 1960)) is, by its own merit, reason enough for the OMs to be documented. As one of Oxford's oldest societies, visited by Kings, Princes, Lords and such personages we have been brought to international attention (just ask the King of Norway, the King of Tunisia or Archduke Otto von Habsburg - all of whom have attended events or who are in regular contact with the society). The record of Heath is an important contribution, from the minutes of our society, to the debate regarding the university career of the late Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.90.229 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Responding to various arguments:
  • Your testimony is irrelevant: what is required is verified evidence of notability from reliable sources.
  • I am a member (as a graduate) of the University of Oxford, thanks, but in any case 'notability within the University of Oxford' is not notability for WP purposes.
  • What your comment about not admitting women has to do with the issue is beyond me.
  • I repeat: if their association with the club is an important part of the lives of the King of Norway etc., it can be recorded in their articles. I doubt that this is the case, but could certainly be wrong - if you disagree, provide some reliable sources to support the claim.
  • If the 'record of Heath is an important contribution ... to the debate regarding the university career of the late Prime Minister', it should go in his article. As it stands, it doesn't seem to be of much importance as a biographical fact about Heath, and it has no obvious relevance to an encyclopedia article on the society, even if that is to be kept.
  • I don't at all see why the (unverified) fact that the society has existed since 1884 makes it notable.
  • Nor do I see why the association with a former PM does so, unless it was important in shaping his career.
• Yours, Sam Clark 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Surely the references to Hansard and the OMs inter-web site are reliable sources. If not, would it be aceptable to note a source as 'Unpublished letter from HRIH Otto von Habsburg to N.'? I'm afraid that the King of norway doesn't publish articles so we can hardly reference them. With regard to the 1884 foundation (source: unpublished file on the Monarchist Society from the John Jonston collection, Department of Western Manuscripts, bodlein Library, Oxford) surely being one of the oldest societies of Oxford is a notable fact. For comparison please look at the Oxford University Newman Society which claims many famed former members without giving a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.90.229 (talk • contribs)
    • If your sources are, as you explicitly state, "unpublished", then contributions based upon them fail our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. Nobody is now denying that the club exists. What's wanted is evidence of notability, i.e. of its being significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The google test isn't always reliable, but a mere 5 hits is not a good sign. No, unpublished letters are not reliable sources. No, I don't think that 'being one of the oldest societies of Oxford is a notable fact' (although others may disagree) - but in any case, that fact has not been established. And there's a longstanding precedent in AfD debates that 'article X therefore article Y' is not an argument. Yours, Sam Clark 08:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but I propose to "watch" this discussion with a view, if the final decsiion is to delete, to block-nominating the various US college societies which Wiki has, on the "NOT article X therefore NOT article Y" principle. -- Simon Cursitor 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest reading WP:POINT before doing so, but quite possibly there are many such societies which don't deserve an entry. What's their relevance here? Sam Clark 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such principle. Uncle G 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is not enough source material from sources other than the society itself for a full article, and as stated above the article is based upon unpublished material and is unverifiable. The mention in Hansard is exactly that, a mention. It does not support a full article. The same is true of the article in The Guardian, which in fact repeats the same information, namely that Sir John Stokes was once the president of this society. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources say and how they say it. This society garners a 1 sentence mention in discussions of Sir John Stokes outside of Wikipedia, and thus warrants no more than the 1 sentence mention, that it already has in John Heydon Stokes, inside Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - So far, I'm not able to find any scholarly resources on this. Keesiewonder 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. There are enormous numbers of student societies at Oxford of varying histories and degrees of notability. This society is not notable outside Oxford, would rarely be encountered by most students at Oxford, and has contributed nothing notable to the wider world. There is no significant source material to support this entry, and in any case what we look for is notability. If this were an article on Vincent's, the Assassins or the Bullingdon Club I would say keep, but we have nothing like the same level of notability here. If the most significant item that can be found in the club's minutes is a piece of undergraduate-ish fatuity like the one included, the organisation is not significant. We are not a directory of student clubs. WMMartin 17:32, 3 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.