Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterhouse Politics Society
- 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. —Xyrael / 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peterhouse Politics Society[edit]
Delete, non-notable student society. I tried to have it speedied it as nn-bio, but the author asserted that it was notable, and also removed a later editor's {{prod}} tag, so I'm bringing it here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Google lists only 39 hits, and shows the "Society" as being completely unheard of once you step off this school's campus. --Aaron 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suspect that in practice if not theory that it's a drinking society anyway. Dave 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it absolutely appalling that 'Dave' accuses the society of being a drinking society when he can clearly know absolutely nothing about the society. Before making such assertions perhaps he should contact some of the frontbench politicians, such as the former leader of the Conservative Party Michael Howard, who attend the society's events and ask them whether the society debates serious issues or engages in drinking. Perhaps he should also ask the 150 students who attended the Michael Howard event (average weekly attendance at the Cambridge Union is rarely over 30). And as for there being 39 hits on google, your average Cambridge student lives in the real world.
- It should be clear to anyone that the society exists and has held the events listed with the frontbench politicians named in the article about the society on wikipedia. This can be easily checked with those politicians' offices and Peterhouse itself if necessary. It should be clear to anyone that any society that holds the events the Peterhouse Politics Society does is a serious society and thus merits its entry on wikipedia: it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that so many famous politicians would come to the society's meetings if it were merely a 'drinking' society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppspps (talk • contribs) 18:43, September 14, 2006
- Note to closing admin: Above post is by creator of Peterhouse Politics Society. --Aaron 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be clear to anyone that the society exists and has held the events listed with the frontbench politicians named in the article about the society on wikipedia. This can be easily checked with those politicians' offices and Peterhouse itself if necessary. It should be clear to anyone that any society that holds the events the Peterhouse Politics Society does is a serious society and thus merits its entry on wikipedia: it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that so many famous politicians would come to the society's meetings if it were merely a 'drinking' society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppspps (talk • contribs) 18:43, September 14, 2006
The Comments by 'Dave' are immature, ignorant and wrong. As it has been clearly stated, the Peterhouse Politics Society is worthy of note based upon its reputation and standing within the University of Cambridge as a focal point and premiere speaker society for political discussion and debate. If Dave is so concerned about pointless drinking societies appearing on the pages of Wikipedia, perhaps he should turn his attention to the entry for the illustrious Pitt Club, a drinking society par excellence. As already noted, if he is so concerned about Peterhouse Politics Society being a drinking society, perhaps before making wild and inaccuarte assertions he should contact the prestigous speakers cited in the list of Peterhouse Politics Society. But be warned, they are all extremely busy people who probably would not take kindly to having their time wasted with questions from an individual who evidently knows nothing about what he is debating and has far to much time on his hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsthatcher (talk • contribs)
- Comments. Ppspps and MrsThatcher: Just to let you know that you can (and should) sign your comments on talk pages, by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. I also agree with you that Dave's comments are out of order. We should be talking about whether the society is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, not just casting aspersions. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pitt Club is not a drinking society, it's a gentleman's club, (at least the bits that are not Pizza Express). Again, like the Cambridge Union, it has history on its side. Give PPS 15 years and have the atendees (not the speakers) in power, and it may well be notable. At the moment, it isn't. Feel free to email me through my profile if you would like further discussion. Dave 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge pruned version with Peterhouse. College societies don't generally merit separate inclusion, and this society seems younger than many. Espresso Addict 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it may have a high calibre of speaker, but it is non-notable outside a very small environment. It is not a long-standing society nor has it had an influence on other sphere, unlike other Cambridge societies like the Apostles or the Union. Greycap 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete The Henry Jackson Society is a notable Peterhouse society. This appears not to be. Bwithh 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for the comments about the Peterhouse Politics Society being young, it can't really help that. If Wikipedia had existed in the 19th century when the Cambridge Union and Pitt Club were just starting up and someone had created an article about them, would they have been met with the same response? Just because the society is young it doesn't mean it's not notable Ppspps 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in so far as one can imagine such a hypothetical, I expect they would. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - and even now I am uneasy about the Pitt Club article, too. I would be happier if it were an article on the phenomenon of clubs devoted to Pitt, and his personality cult, in general. (The Cambridge Pitt is hardly notable beyond those who've attended the university). Yes, you're right that it can't help its age, but it's not just the age that means it is not notable. It has not had enough impact beyond Cambridge to warrant an article of its own; this is what matters rather than the significance of the speakers (which is why the speakers are in Wikipedia for the most part) - a section in the article on Peterhouse is more appropriate, I think. (Sounds like a good society though - wish it had been in existence when I was there) Greycap 18:40, 16 September 2006 (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.