Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds Labour Students

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 consensus is that there is no indication or evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Labour Students

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable school club. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Contested PROD. PROD removed with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument Ravendrop (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club was where many members of the later labour government began politics, is of importance within the student movement and within the labour party. At a minimum Glasgow and Oxford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Labour_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Labour_Club also have pages for their societies and are of equal prominence. Is a University soc not a school soc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfollett (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baring the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, no citations have been provided. Only link is to 1st party source. If independent notability/verifiability can be established (and not hung off the we had 1 notable member) then we can review the article. For the time being for failing the basics of a WP article this is a delete. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (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.