Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago University Debating Society

Add links
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 was No Consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Debating Society

[edit]
Otago University Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable university debating society. Article is unreferenced and reads like a fan site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination is blatantly false as the article contains references. This debating society has been at the centre of the social life of this illustrious university since its beginning over a century ago. It thus seems comparable with other prominent institutions such as the Oxford Union. Our editing policy trumps the uncivil opinion about the article's style which is, in any case, a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comparable to Oxford Union, really? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure Oxford Union would pass in flying colours the notability test. LibStar (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, really - I found this comparison in a source. As this university was the first in this dominion of the British Empire, it seems natural for it to have followed the examples of Oxbridge. Note that it is an older institution than Yale Debate Association for which we have an article. The existence of these similar articles for other major universities provides a satisfactory precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
similarly if we delete this it also creates a precedent. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed for every keep precedent there is a delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Association of Debaters. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD discussion in which just one editor comments does not constitute a significant consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - I'm not a believer in AfD precedent at all. But it is no weaker a "precedent" than the existence of other articles which may or may not be analogous or may or may not be about notable subjects. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according this list, the top ranked university in the world is Sydney, and as far as I can tell, they don't have an article. I guess they're too busy winning tournaments to create pages that fail our inclusion criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it might be, but if they just come in and only say 'keep i like it' it wouldn't have any effect, it would be getting their expert, albeit potentially biased opinion, and hopefully sourcing, that we would want.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Philtweir is currently on campus at Otago doing his PhD. It seems pretty daft not to be able to invite him to find sources for fear of offending Codf1977. - Pointillist (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ''Collegiate Debating Societies source looks to be a good read. "Screeching, screaming hyenas" and the "Barrackers' Brigade" make it sound just like AFD.  :) Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to Closing Admin : Please be aware of this notice placed on Pointillist talk page by Colonel Warden. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That notice was limited, neutral, non-partisan and open. User:Pointillist was contacted because of his experience of working upon Oxbridge topics. I hoped that he would be able to assist us in this related case and his contribution does seem to have raised the tone of the discussion. We should thank him for his effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed that Colonel Warden just wanted me to help find sources, since I have a reputation for being a persistent researcher (e.g. here). I assure you that I did the searches before I decided whether to vote here. I'd feel happier if those four editors I mentioned could be told about this discussion, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand is unlikely to have caught their attention. I imagine people who watch pages like that are likely to be XFD-obsessives rather than "real" editors who would invest time searching their university library for sources. - Pointillist (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep The Google news search shows 20 results, many of them just scans of old newspapers, impossible to quickly search through. If notable people have been part of this society, it helping to shape who they were and their careers, then its notable. Dream Focus 12:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It merits a mention that AfDs over debating society articles are not uncommon. I have no doubt that overzealous debate club members have created many articles for which little to no sourcing could be found. These are commonly deleted. Here Codf1977 has been a strong advocate for deleting or merging almost all of these articles, and has put a lot of effort into it in the last year. Few other editors have paid much attention recently. Some past history:
  • So, from this history, we know that a few editors believe that few of these debating societies are notable. Presumably there are notable ones, as seems to be conceded above. As for this debating society, there do appear to be some sources found already supporting notability (including dedicated histories of the university supporting that this group is one of few notable student groups), and some news coverage both historical and recent, but this is a classic case of where editors will split hairs on whether the coverage is sufficient (although we can't really say we've been able to locate all the coverage). In this situation, since we should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE where possible, I am going to propose a Keep. If we end up at no consensus here, merger could be considered in the future if sourcing doesn't improve from where it is right now. Should the decision here, however, be to delete/redirect, the content should be moved into the appropriate parent article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Milowent's AfD precedents above. Also, the sources in this article are quite poor. Most are either primary, not reliable, or provide only extremely local coverage. SnottyWong converse 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Merge or Delete. I am unable to find any secondary sources that analyse this student club. All online sources are primary or not independent, either put out by the University or the Otago University Students' Association. I feel it does deserve a mention on the University's page due to its extreme longevity. Abductive (reasoning) 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are reliable sources. I just took a look at a few pages of Dr Kaiser's thesis (which is in itself a potential source) and found:
Canterbury College Review (Oct. 1901, 18-9, Appendix 7; Jun. 1902, 7; Jun. 1903, 12-13)
New Zealand Herald (25th August 1897, 5)
Dunedin Evening Star (cited in Otago University Review, Aug. 1901, 79)
The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/) says William Downie Stewart, Jr. was a member in c. 1898-1900, John Callan (judge) was a member of the club who won the Joynt Challenge Scroll in 1905 and Oswald Chettle Mazengarb represented Otago for debating in c. 1910.
McKenzie, Donald Francis. 1985. Oral Culture, Literacy & Print in Early New Zealand
There is of course lots of stuff in Morrell, W. P. 1969. The University of Otago, a Centennial History, published by the Otago University Press.
- Pointillist (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the thesis is a secondary source, but it's in-house. The primary sources are all local, and just as important, don't say anything interesting. I'm sorry, but "there's this student club that dates back to 1878, and in all that time has had three members who later became notable by Wikipedia standards" just doesn't cut it for me. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis author is a European and she did the work at University of Canterbury so it isn't "in-house". It is "local" to New Zealand, I suppose (Canterbury is about 200 miles from Otago18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)). New Zealand isn't well covered by wikipedia: there are other notable members of the debating society in the DNZB but they don't have wp articles yet. - Pointillist (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the debate swings on somebody's unpublished PhD thesis, and that thesis has basically no sources, one is forced to conclude that the topic is uninteresting. Abductive (reasoning) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the debate "swings" on the fact that a large number of potential sources exist (Dr Kaiser's thesis has a 33-page bibliography). These sources are over 100 years old and aren't on the Internet so they can't be examined without library work, which is impracticable without support from some contributors based in New Zealand who have access to university libraries. But we can't ask them to assist because Codf1977 would complain to the closing admin. I cannot see why it is so important to insist on deleting this article given that wikipedia is happy to have articles about in-universe characters from popular culture entirely referenced to sources that have a financial interest and no academic standards to control what they say. Good grief! - Pointillist (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That it reads like a fansite is irrelevant in a deletion discussion (easily fixed through editing). The question of reliable references has been addressed thanks to the work of Milowent and Pointillist. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The first 3 sources in the article at the moment are: The Otago University Debating Society, The University of Otago, and Otago University Students' Association, so these obviously don't count as independent of the subject. Also, the 4th reference doesn't even count as a trivial mention, while the 6th is at least a legitimate trivial mention. The only source that gets even close to being independent and providing significant coverage is the 5th, but that on it's own isn't enough. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second source (a 261 page book about the university) is probably going to be pretty reliable, even though it was published by the university and written by a long-serving academic from the university. According to his DNZB article, the author W P Morrell is a well-established NZ historian who had a double First from Otago and a DPhil from Oxford, was a lecturer and reader at Birkbeck and eventually became Otago's Professor of History. He might be a bit of a primary source, but with that pedigree he's unlikely to be materially inaccurate. - Pointillist (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that primary sources can never be used, however at present, it would appear the subject is non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-independent source in its purest form. Abductive (reasoning) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I incline to inclusionism, not deletism, but I am not by any means an extreme inclusionist. We should remember that we are trying to write the sum of all knowledge. Is this article part of that knowledge? The questions we never ask at AfD are "Are there readers who might want to read this article" and "Does removing it really improve the encyclopedia". The answer to the first is "yes, not many, but other debaters will want to know who they are up against in competitions". The answer to the second is "No". The sources are not great as others have said, but I think they are enough. The article will improve with time. I say keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Codf1977's 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Note to Closing Admin : please also be aware that the AfD nominator notified Chickletducks (talk · contribs) whose most recent edit to Otago University Debating Society ‎was on 2006-09-22, and whose account has been inactive since 2006, but did not notify XLerate (talk · contribs) even though xe most recently edited Otago University Debating Society on 2010-07-04, is still active and is a member of Category:Wikipedians in Dunedin and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Otago. - Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am willing to create a combined page for Clubs and societies of the University of Otago as suggested by Grutness above. I am at the University and could possibly find some of the book references. Several of the other club pages already deleted could be included in the page. The debating society, while today only as notable as any other on campus club, has had a large role in the development of student politics at Otago, and therefore in New Zealand. Combined, perhaps the page could have enough notability to survive? GintyFrench(talk!) 15:34, 23 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otago_University_Debating_Society&oldid=1146030216"