Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawks' Club

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 No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks' Club

Doesn't seem to meet the notability standards of WP:ORG only source is a self-published book. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this organisation does not have much publicity, this is a result of its nature as a private members club, its influence on the niversity and probably on the country would be very easy to underestimate.

Deleting the article would only serve to cut of the general public from a failry closed and privilidged world that it would be better for more people to understand and have access to.

Please try and understan what an atricle as about before it is selected for injudicious deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.249.88 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you might want to look at Skull and Bones a comparable institution to what you claim about this club. That article has numerous third-party sources. This doesn't. And there is nothing whatsoever injudicious about this AFD. It's a standard process, with 5 days to comment on the club and offer an explanation as to how it meets the relevant criteria for inclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I wrote to say that I thought that the deletion of this article would be a mistake. I have spent some time at Cambridge, and the more information the better, even for smaller clubs and so on.Twuster 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is it a mistake to delete this article? Are you suggesting that every club at Cambridge should have an article? You're not really being convincing here, since you're not really saying anything about this club. Why does it matter? Because to be honest, with this kind of comment, I'm more inclined to believe your association with Cambridge is warping your perspective on this situation. Perhaps you think everybody "just knows" this club is important, but try to imagine this was some random university in the world. Would you think it was a good article then? FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please explain how this article does not meet notability criteria of WP:ORG. I notice this editor has put up a raft of AfDs which seem to relate exclusively to Oxford and Cambridge university societies. Some may be justified; others are certainly not - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club. Johnbod 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." . And as I said in the nomination, the only sources in this article were its own self-published books. So, where are the third-party sources that cover this club? They're not in the article. And again, you attack me for these nominations. I don't know why. I came across these categories which have a fair number of unreferenced articles on clubs at these universities. Is there something wrong with saying "Hmm, this may be a problem?" and after looking for sources, not finding any significant ones, deciding to try the AFD route? Do you believe I have some sort of grudge against these universities? Seriously, what do you expect me to do, nominate individual articles from every college that has inappropriate ones added to Wikipedia? I suppose I could, but it'd take a long time. But no, I think I'll deal with problems as I see them. And in this case, you may note, I didn't bundle or mass nominate every club. Just those which most clearly didn't have third-party sources. If you have a problem with that, I can only say, WP:AGF. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article needs to be improved by having excess detail removed. As i'ts considered a good thing to improve an article while at AfD, I removed some as a start. In practice, I consider that notable members are a partial guide to notability. But I'd be much happier with a good source or two--surely some of these gentlemen--or their political opponents, perhaps-- must have written about it? DGG 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many of these notable members are known as being members of the club? That's simply not a good argument to notability on its own. Do you think it matters to anyone that Prince Charles was a member of this club? Hugh Laurie? Karan Bilimoria? I'm sorry, but the notability doesn't transfer over very well in this case. Besides, I've never seen any argument whatsoever that indicates that having notable members equals notable organization is an accepted consensus anyway. It would be much better to find coverage of this club rather than rely on these arguments of transference. FrozenPurpleCube 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rationale for deletion is simple: In order to pass the WP:ORG guideline, there must be independent reliable sources about the subject. No such sources have been given, however. --B. Wolterding 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources, which seem unlikely to be found. --Huon 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Cambridge Blue is notable. The people who earn them often go on to notable careers and I am surprised that many of those people have not written about the Club that they joined as a Blue at Cambridge. Coming from "the other place" (Oxford) I really do not know where to look for this information. A Google search gives information about many people who mention their membership and many other important Clubs that see fit to have reciprocal membership with the Hawks' Club. I would move to strong keep if more references were added, as I am sure that this Club is notable. --Bduke 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found two references documenting the club's charity work with The Prostate Cancer Charity: Press release from Cambridge & the Charity's coverage of a fundraiser hosted by the club. Both of those should satisfy WP:RS. Caknuck 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, yes; but not independent, being from the University and the charity they sponsored, respectively. Also does not contain much substantial information on the club (basically a one-paragraph boilerplate blurb). --B. Wolterding 16:58, 7 July 2007 (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.