Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge 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 keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge University Labour Club

This is the club of local party members at a university. I had tagged it nn-club, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull Universtiy Labour Club, but an admin declared it wasn't a speedy candidate, so I am listing it here. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep the alumni of this organisation is a 'who's who' of British politics. Extremely notable political society. --Doc ask? 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- some interest to potential readers present Astrotrain 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This club, like the Oxford one is an MP factory in a way which does not apply to Hull etc. Morwen - Talk 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; see other one for reasoning. James F. (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oxford have five MPs listed, Hull have four and one former listed. Oxford and Cambridge are up for deletion, Hull's is being reviewed. As the creator of the Hull entry, I'm happy as long as we all go or we all stay. M20tgd

  • Delete: Per my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull University Labour Club, 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. Alternatively, if alumni of the club have made statements indicating the club was influential in their later fame (and we can cite such claims), then I think there's a case. Failing this, we could potentially have every club and group that Tony Blair has been a member of simply because he happened to have been in it before he was famous. The metric here needs to be what has the organization done to be famous in its own right rather than just ridding on the coat tails of the later fame of its alumni? Compare to Skull and bones which has plenty of notable people from it, but has also frequently been the subject of news stories. It's notable in its own right, not just from the later fame of its alumni. --Durin 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody is demanding that. We are just asking you to trust the judgement of actual British people who know British politics here. Morwen - Talk 08:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep notable club, and no reason to delete!—the preceding unsigned comment is by UkPaolo (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per comments for Oxford University Labour Club. Many prominent MP's started their political lives here, unlike Hull University Labour Club, hence the inclusion of one and not t'other.  (aeropagitica)  23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Another clearly notable student society. But delete the currentofficeholdercruft - that's vanity and not of general interest outside the club. u p p l a n d 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although I declare an interest as a former member of the club (when it was called Cambridge Organisation of Labour Students). The principal University political societies are notable as places where many famous political figures meet and develop their politics. David | Talk 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable alumni, and an impact on British politics. Certainly far more notable than most high schools, which also get kept. Proto t c 11:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above --kingboyk 19:40, 27 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.