Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Cave 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Cave Club[edit]

Should redirect to Oxford University#Student life at best, as this is just the college caving club (and not related to where the Beatles played). Utgard Loki 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A university will always have a raft of clubs, and merging would bloat the university article with information that more properly belongs on a web page. -- Whpq 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. This club has done some notable exporations and I think has made an important contribution to caving in the UK. It may, like many other Oxford University Clubs, deserve an article. However it needs a lot more work. --Bduke 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. 99of9 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote the article: there was an "OUCC disambiguation page", on which the OU Cave club was listed, but as a dead link. Hence I added the short article, essentially to clear this disamb up, and to direct further enquiries to the club's main web pages (which I maintain). I suggest the article is worth keeping, if only for consistency with the disamb page's raison d'être. In response to Whpq, OU Cave Club has been around for 50 years, so I think it's stable enough to merit a small note in Wikipedia. In response to Loki, it's the university caving club, not a college one (there is a difference). I deliberately kept the piece short, for the reasons noted earlier, but am happy to expand if that is the general opinion. On the other hand, if there's a strong vote for delete, no hassle.Steve Roberts 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My nomination was due to the very "raft of organizations" that each and every college (and university) will have. The designation of each one to an article does two bad things. First, it is such granular coverage that the next request/justification will be for a high school's after hours drama productions. If school organizations are not discussed at the school, but as stand-alone articles, we are open to all schools making the same justification (and then every card game). The second is that it produces an inherently unsearchable name. Would a person looking for the information look at Wikipedia? Would she look at the Oxon pages? Would he look at the actual university website? In other words, why would we offer an article, unless the organization has done something to or in the world that would make the world seek information here instead of its more logical spots? This was no revenge on student organizations or deprecation of "notability" (which is a red herring, but I can't see any AfD voters voting on anything but that, these days), but rather an argument for the proper organization of information. (Next stop, "Lincoln High's production of Oklahoma! 2007," I'm afraid.) Utgard Loki 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would suggest a slight expansion, providing an indication of approximate membership and details of its most significant acheivements over the past 50 years. For Non-UK users' benefit, Oxford Univeristy is the most ancietn in Britain and one of the most prestigious. Peterkingiron 01:30, 5 March 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.