Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers

Contested prod. This article has no references; I could find none beyond the society's own website. Google hits are mostly directory entries. Non-notable, possibly OR. — mholland (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - it does appear to be a genuinely big society, but presumably any sources would be print-only from university, local or specialist campanological publications so un-dig-out-able for anyone not either at the university or prepared to root through a copyright library; while I do try to do my bit for Article Rescue, there is a limit. Change to Keep if anyone who is in either of these positions can add sources - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, university societies don't need their own articles. To justify a page there needs to be significant secondary sources showing notability, for example that they have won a major award or achieved significant favourable reviews. Bridgeplayer 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete.This article is useful to prospective students learning about the society and its activities. It is also the societies 50th anniversary this year and therefore it will be useful to reunite old members and get in touch with past students. It is a valusable resource for past and present members of an active society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.4.104 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— 86.21.4.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete. As the original editor of this page I accept your criticism of the lack of references. However, having been involved with the Society since 1996 I would argue that it is an important society which is one of the oldest university bellringing societies and which has supported the development of many bellringers, a number of whom are now leaders in the change-ringing exercise. Although such a statement may seem a bit grandiose it is worth bearing in mind that there are 40000 current ringers in the UK and it is a significant part of English cultural heritage (eg Betjeman, Summoned by the bells). I do not think it is a hopeless case and with some work can be brought up to an acceptable standard. [Can anyone let me know what time-scale these discussions take place over? Thank you for your input.] Andrew.cairns 09:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that there are two issues here; firstly whether the society is notable as a university society; and secondly whether the society is notable in is own right (and just so happens to be also a university society). I believe there is sufficient secondary evidence (most of which only available in 'print' format; some now referenced in the article) to back up the second claim, even if the first point is unsuccessfully argued. 80.44.161.117 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speaking as a member of the society still resident in Nottingham, I know first-hand that our presence on Wikipedia has been useful both in terms of recruiting new members and in getting back in touch with graduate members of the socity with whom we have lost touch. In addition, our knowledge of the history of the society has been enhanced by discussion/correspondance generated in response to the entry. The society has taught and developed many ringers over the years, many of which are in leadership/teaching roles all over the country, helping to maintain the art and science of change ringing- hence it is definitely an influential society within bellringing itself. --Andrew Wignell 07:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Andrew Wignell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - changing to keep in light of the rewrite and sourcing of the article; while it's "only" a university society, it's clearly a major player in their (admittedly specialist) scene with multiple coverage in specialist publications — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references added would seem to resolve the concerns around notability. - Fordan (talk) 07:04, 29 April 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.