Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 139 club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: The opinions of many anon and sockpuppet votes were steeply discounted during my decision. However, the facts presented by the new users were considered.

Rossami (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 139 club

Not sufficiently notable This is just one student club at Glasgow University, there are a few dozen such clubs at GU alone. Some of the more important student bodies e.g. Glasgow University Union are encyclopedic this is not. I suspect an attempt at POV-pushing in relation to the historic mixing isse, this is reasonably dealt with in the GUU article, anything legitimate should be added there. PatGallacher 10:10, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

  • This is legitimate and official. Ask the GUU Board of Management for authorisation
    • This last comment is from an anon user. PatGallacher 14:46, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The 139 Club has no official links with the GUU and is completely independent. I think the GUU management would prefer this page to be seperate as not to confuse the issue. It would be best to contact their president. Thank you Robert Marrs

  • That is excellent information to add to the atrticle assuming it is merged!Roodog2k 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT MERGE This club is an entirely separate entity from the GUU and as other 'affiliates' such as the GU Dialectic Society have their own section so to should the 139.
    • I would regard Glasgow University Dialectic Society as borderline notable, but looking at its article it does go back to about 1861, may go back further, it has played a significant role since then, so I'll let it pass. Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean every student club at every university should have an entry. PatGallacher 19:33, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. A small club founded in 2002? Not-notable. Sdedeo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Roodog2k. I'll change my vote to Delete since a redirect would imply a relationship that, per above, does not exist. Dottore So 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, as the anon keeps insisting, a redirect to Glasgow University Union would not be appropriate. Zoe 20:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Vanity. POV. 62.252.128.18 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do apologise if this is causing consternation. I was under the impression that the whole point of a "live" environment like Wikipedia's was that so quirks like this might have a place.
  • Delete Not notable. ucsb1984 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

1) The Dialectic has history from before 1861. The earliest paper records show somewhere before 1770.. although it could be older still, and no doubt is (i.e. it is unlikely that the first ever record would be kept etc).

2) On the Dialectic page, it should be 'Reftable Debate' not 'Refutable'.

3) I think student societies should be separate from unions they may or may not be affiliated to. They are, after all, separate organisations.

4) If someone created a page for the Hawks Club (i.e. the sporting blues assoc. at Cambridge) there wouldn't be such an outcry. I am surprised there isn't a page for this historical society.

5) I would also point to the TCD Phil and TCD Hist societies - why do these have separate pages, when they ostensibly do the same thing - why not merge the pages? I don't think mere 'age' is a good enough reason to keep some things, and remove others - it is somewhat arbitrary.

6) The 139 plays a very distinct role, one clearly different from the student union it might happen to use for it's dinners.

R Marrs

R Marrs is running several issues together, some of his comments about other pages should be dealt with on their own merits, not dealt with here. There is not yet a page for the Hawks Club, I reserve judgement on whether to treat it as notable. I can't find the pages for the "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" societies, could he point us to them? The crucial point he is missing here is that if the 139 Club is notable, then every student club at every university in the world is notable. PatGallacher 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

  • Keep Why shouldn't every student club at every university in the world have a place? My understanding of Wikipedia was that these quirks and idiosyncracies made it unique. ("Trinity College Dublin" contains the links to TCD Phil & Hist)P.S. I am currently President of the Glasgow University Union and no sock puppet! --Niallrowantree 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This last comment is by an anon user, I suspect some sockpuppetry. I have had a look at the Trinity College, Dublin article, it says "Trinity College has a vibrant student life with 96 societies and 50 sports clubs", are we really going to have a Wikipedia article for all 144 clubs, and the same for all other universities? TCD Phil and TCD Hist are the only 2 student clubs at TCD who appear to have an article, they and GU Dialectic have a lengthy history and organise some sort of significant intellectual activity, not just a booze-up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that. PatGallacher 17:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hawks Club - from my understanding it is a club for all the Blues at Cambridge. This would include some sporting stars such as Rob Andrew, Gavin Hastings and some not so sporting stars such as Hugh Laurie. I presume this would be dealt with separately from say the Cambridge University Sports Association, although they are obviously linked together.

The crucial point PatGallacher is missing is that there is no reason as to why every student club at every university isn't notable. Will The 139 be allowed on here if one of their alumni becomes a Captain of Industry or a politician etc? I would argue such arbitrary distinctions are nonsense. If people are arguing for it's inclusion, surely that alone nearly makes it worthy of inclusion?

Would it not make Wikipedia a more vibrant encyclopedia to include quirks such as The 139? I don't think we have heard good enough arguments from PatGallacher - and surely, it is for the 'deleters' to prove their case.

Moreover, the real fact of the matter is that not all societies will fill up the pages of Wikipedia. For example, Eton College has it's own entry but is really only an educational establishment which happens to have had a few old boys go on to do a few things. Would you object to this because every school in the world might want an entry? No clearly not, because clearly not every school in the world wants a page on Wikipedia.

Sock Puppetry? I'm not exactly sure what that is being relatively new to the Wikipedia phenomenon. Niall Rowantree is the current president of the Union, and I think was the person behind the original 139 entry. I would get in contact with him, his details are readily available on the GUU website.

I think this comes down to simple snobbishness. 'GU Dialectic has a lengthy history and organise some sort of intellectual activity, not just a booze up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that'.

If The 139 held debates, political rallies or brainstorming sessions would a page be approved? If PatGallacher had any contact with either the Dialectic, or the Phil and the Hist, he/she would know that rather a lot of their activities are based around 'booze ups'. The fact that something is new should not preclude it from entry, and the fact that something is not 'intellectual', and I don't know where that allegation comes from whether it is true or not, should preclude entry either.

Robert Marrs

Robert Marrs (acting as an anon user) deleted the whole of the previous discussion to enter this, I had to retrieve the previous version and add his comments. This smacks of vandalism, but it may just have been a mistake by an newbie. PatGallacher 18:39, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry didn't mean to delete the entire thread of the debate - I was just trying to clear the screen so I could type. I didn't think it would actually delete the whole thing from wikipedia. I hope my incompetence doesn't count against me! Robert Marrs

  • Keep --RobertMarrs 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Furthermore, I notice the Glasgow University Shinty Club has it's own page. Neither particularly historic, promotes drinking far more heavily than The 139 (which bizarrely seems to be a criteria) and probably not particularly noteworthy under most people's definitions. I'd keep it, but I think we have a precedent for University Clubs at Glasgow getting their own page.--86.130.145.220 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Robert Marrs's points are not persuasive. He gives reasons why a "Hawks Club" entry would be suitable: the prominence of members, the international name recognition it has. "The 139 Club" has neither of these attributes.

Equally his argumentation regarding "Eton" is self-defeating. Arguments against the inclusion of other schools would clearly be if they were "not sufficiently notable"; the very same charge being leveled against "the 139 Club" entry.

His points regarding "booze-ups" and linking "Glasgow University Dialectic Society", "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" are unconvincing. While drinking may occur in those other institutions that is not their primary activity nor constitutional function. Their role is a public one, which "the 139 Club"'s is not: to debate.

Despite Mr Marrs's comments: newness should preclude entry, unless the institutional is unusually notable.

There is no "right" to be included in "Wikipedia". Instead there are criteria which make inclusion worthwhile to a global community. A primary one being "sufficiently notable". Brown27 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

1) I've had rather a lot of experience of TCD Phil, TCD Hist and the Dialectic, I wonder very much whether you have? If not, your opinion is somewhat valueless. You are assuming things that might not actually be true. 2) I would say a decent definition of encyclopedia means 'A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically, usually dealing with the entire field of human knowledge'. Surely including The 139 would make Wikipedia more 'comprehensive' and such articles would meet the criteria of a 'wide range of subjects'. Limiting things on somewhat arbitray bases such as 'newness', 'fame' and the 'activity they do' is somewhat snobbish and prescriptivist. Why is boozing any less valuable than some students debating, if this is what The 139 actually do? Why is the relatively new (and non-historic, non-famous) GU Shinty club allowed a page? 3) The 139 isn't even particularly new, as it is based around a historical event - highlighting how important that event is to some people. However, as they are independent of the GUU they should not be lumped together here. --RobertMarrs 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it says somewhere. I would regard Glasgow University Shinty Club as only borderline notable, but it has been in existence since 1901, represents the university at a recognised sport, and has had some significant successes over the years. Merely commemorating a notable event does not make you notable, I suspect POV pushing. We already have the "average professor test" i.e. to be notable you have to have done more than the average professor, I suggest we add the "average student club test". PatGallacher 16:44, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

But if this test was to be brought in, you would have to delete GU Shinty as they aren't terribly notable - 103 years old, a few successes, hardly Kingussie Shinty Club. Surely POV pushing is what this is all about - you think it should be out, I think it should be in. POV pushing by using the page itself is nonsensical, there is no point of view pushing on the page it merely relates facts. Unless, you think that the club itself has an agenda - which would make nearly every club in the world not worthy of inclusion.--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On another point who actually makes the decision here?--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable. GlasgowUni 22:24, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
  • SAVE This is very much a note worthy club because of its relationship to the critical shift in membership status for women at the last all male student club. If this event and the club it created is not note worthy what is? --ViaVeritasVita 11:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the interest that this has ignited is reason enough for keeping it!--Niallrowantree 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- not notable The 139 club is certainly not worthy of note. It is only a few years old and amounts to drunken boyish tomfoolery. The original 139 (who voted not to accept women in 1981) have never been at or even associated with this club- if you can call it that. Infact they would be disgusted at the behaviour of some of the members at this dinner. All this amounts to is vanity. 62.49.29.190

Um, do we accept votes from people with no name? Because surely that is more likely to involve sock-puppetry? On the last post, it seems to me we have a classic example of POV pushing. 1) No name 2) Allegations that, let's face it, cannot be upheld. Debate the issue on it's merits (which on the whole have been widely sidestepped) not on whether you like the club or not. --RobertMarrs 07:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The 139 may be there, ostensibly, to commemorate a past event but the fact that the club is only a few years old speaks even more against it. That there was no previous club, from what I can tell, or even if there was the fact that it was discontinued (if it did exist at all a continuous existence since the vote has not been mentioned on this site), implies that this event, whilst of note in the history of the Glasgow University Union, seems not important enough even for a "society" to be formed in its honour, let alone to have a seperate entry dedicated to it (in the form of this nascent club). If those around at the time did not feel strongly enough about it then those, twenty years later, cannot claim to be maintaining any sort of grand tradition of note. It's a bit sad really

Furthermore, I can vouch for brown27's remarks as to these debating societies. Mr Marrs' argument, such that it is, that "I have considerable experience- do you!" is not only pathetically childish it is also exposes the duplicitous nature of his whole approach here. Perhaps to Mr. Marrs debating at Glasgow University is only about gettign drunk, but to the vast majority there is a higher purpose, as exhibited in the Constitution and in the long, long, honourable traditon and history of the Society. The fact he refuses to admit this- despite his great experience- is quite scandalous and undermines his case. The argument, at any rate, was not about whether there is drinking but if that was the primary purpose. It evidently is not in the case of the Dialectic Society but is in the case of the 139 Club.

The reasons to delete it are so numerous. The reason to keep it seems to be based on the merits of non-existent entries. Perhaps that tells us something. The 139 cannot claim anything to the public good, the public interest, the public knowledge- it is the definition of without note.

--Brian Roberts 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok good some actual arguments. Thanks Brian. Firstly, my points regarding my experience with the societies (GUD, TCD Hist and TCD Phil)were that I had direct first hand experience of those societies, I doubt very much whether 'Anon' does. If they don't have experience of these societies, how on earth can they claim to know what they do or how they operate? They cannot - surely? Moreover, my point for the Hist and the Phil was that there was a precedent for two linked societies having separate pages (i.e. they do the same thing at the same university), and I also pointed out the precedent of The GU Shinty club - which would also meet your criteria of being without note. I think my knowledge of the society in question is shown above, where I've tried to correct factual errors on the GUD page... On drinking - ah reductio ad absurdum, the old classic. My point about GUD drinking stands. 45 people speak in a GUU parliamentary, double that number (at least) go to the after debate drinks. Moreover, for many of GUD's members are there primarily for social reasons - only between 8 and 10 debate competitively outwith the GUU. So for many members, as these examples show the main point is the socialising. Nothing wrong at all with being a social member, I am happy to say while I was at university I enjoyed both the debating side and the social side.

On your point regarding the original 139. Many refused ever to set foot in the building after the mixing issue, so it would be a bit difficult to keep things going. Moreover, there are other societies that keep such traditions at Glasgow alive but aren't quite as public as the 139. I point to 'The Lion and Unicorn Club' amongst others, so the spirit has indeed lived on.

I think the encyclopedia definition that I gave is a more compelling argument than your definition of 'without note', but at least you have been good enough to give one.

TTFN--RobertMarrs 13:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Further to Rob's post. There are numerous all-male societies around campus for undergraduates and graduates, and many of the original 139 attend these dinners. The Diners Club (I think now defunct) operated for a good few years; The Winers Club (still in operation); the LAMB Club (still in operation, standing for Last All Male Board); The Lion & Unicorn (still in operation although numbers are drastically down); The Jolly Rodgerers (now defunct, ran by a board member throughout the 1980's and 1990's); The 139 Club (as discussed above, relatively new although admittedly thriving); The 21 Club (rather unsavoury even by University drinking standards, I think now defunct)the Monkey Steakers (I think disbanded, but ran for many a year).

Also, of some importance, is the Girlie Dinner. This dinner is run by girls in and around the GUU, and has been running for over 10 years. However, it does seem to have taken a nosedive in recent years and does not have the 'fervour' of The 139.

A number of those clubs appear to be defunct. However, of course if students are offered a chance to get drunk for very little money people are going to come. The other clubs mentioned are old boy clubs- which are different entities. But none of this undermines my point- the purpose of these "societies" appears to be to drink. However many people who ATTEND debates go for drink, that is not the point of debating. And if it is then that is truly sad. I will also add that the number of people who can go outside the university to debate competitively is rather limited due to places available and funding. I would 10 was a very high number indeed.

Secondly, as to other pages like the Shinty club. No-one has claimed that this society is the definition of a club of note. We are not discussing the nerits of the Shinty club entry, rather the merits of this entry. The fact there are other illegitimate entries uncontested does not mean this illegitimate entry should be allowed.

--217.43.198.2 19:18, 2 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.