Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Society of Change Ringers

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dthomsen8 with the following rationale "remove prod &c.". I don't know what &c means, there was no edit summary or talk page comment, so it was essentially a no-rationale deprod. No refs have been added, and this remains what it was - a total failure at WP:Notability (organizations). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is not a total failure – it has been around for 282 years, which is longer than the USA, say. See also &c.. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not April Fools, so let's stick to arguments that are at least semi-grounded in policy. I have never seen as ridiculous agreement for keeping an entry for organization as "it is old". There are many trees older than that, not to mention rocks, not that we should entries for them, you know. This is WP:ITEXISTS fallacy. Please try to use WP:NCORP or WP:GNG to base your arguments in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the links that Piotrus provides are policies; not one of them. My position is based on three separate policies: WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:NOTPAPER. Three policies trump three non-policies. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Piotrus – just for information, "&c" is another way (not so common now in the 21st century) of writing "etc" or "et cetera". Richard3120 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find a few brief sources on the society: BBC, a book on Oxford, St. Giles bell history website, but nothing in depth. Notability, if this society has it, will be in offline sources. There is some verifiable material; are there any decent merge/redirect targets? --Mark viking (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much in digitized books (Jan Morris (2001). Oxford. Oxford University Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-19-280136-4. is the only mention I see). There may be some coverage in non-digitized newspapers, but I'd expect it to be local, and not very helpful in establishing notability even if found :( I think I suggested a while ago that most organizations in Category:Bell ringing societies in England have notability problems, but nobody found even a good source for the notability of Bell ringing societies in England as a topic. There is List of bell ringing organisations, which may be best and which could provide a bit more info on each relevant organization, particularly since the concept of bell ringing is not yet stubbed, neither... PS. Or we could list members at Central Council of Church Bell Ringers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC source is good enough as it is quite respectable and confirms the age of the institution. As it's so old, I'd expect there to be offline sources which a Google search won't reveal easily – like back issues of The Ringing World. We have a Wikimedian-in-residence at Oxford who has good access to the Bodleian and may be able to help with such topics. I was invited to an Oxford Wikimeet recently; I'll visit and see what can be done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be good to ask them. Let's however keep in mind that WP:NOTNEWS, and while BBC is reliable, not everything they write about is notable. And if all we have to go with is a passing mention that "Foo organization, which is one of the oldest Foo organizations in UK, had a party" or something like this - it is not the stuff that makes it encyclopedic. We write only about important, i.e. notable organizations, and they have to meet GNG. 2-3 short sentences in passing do not suffice for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some reliable sources. the Oxford University Press book has details form which the article can be expanded. This is yet another example of an old organization for which sources are readily available that has a brief and poorly sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMON. I'm assuming that nominator is unfamiliar with English life, so will not realise the role played by change ringers. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (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.