Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Law Society (2nd nomination)

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. This debate seems clear. No prejudice against an article on the historical association. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Law Society[edit]

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

The article doesn't assert any reason why this (relatively recently formed) society is notable (this article does not describe the original Oxford Law Society that flourished until the ~~early~~ end of the 1960s). Wikipedia is not a directory of all student societies. Statements in the article are not verifiable because of the lack of reliable sources. The article is to some extent a coat rack for naming commercial sponsors. ~~The article may conflict with our BLP policy because it lists former officers by name without citing a source.~~ Pointillist (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The list of former officers has now been removed - Pointillist (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC), and judging from the Verdict issue dates, the original society was still going in Summer 1969. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that this article had an overwhelming keep vote in the prior AfD (which did not appear to be highly contingent on the 1960's society), why do you believe that it should be deleted this time? Uberaccount (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'm not questioning the bona fides of those who !voted in the 2006 AfD, but there's no evidence that they were aware that this society (afaics formed in the late 1990s and not registered with the University until recently) was not the same as the University's original law society, which appears to have died out ~~in the early~~ at the end of the 1960s (according to SOLO searches for "Oxford University Law Society" and for "Oxford Law Society"). Furthermore, over the past seven years our standards for notability and verifiability have risen significantly – arguably in response to the rising importance of Wikipedia as a platform for people and organizations to promote themselves – so the context of an AfD decision in 2013 is very different from what it may have been in 2006. - Pointillist (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete As always, are outside sources paying substantial attention to this group? So far it seems not. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage of this society and not enough to establish notability. Only 3 or 4 Google Book hits, for instance. As far as I can see it is not formally associated with the university in any way although of course many students will be members. Mcewan (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence current society is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan A Jones (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be strong case for the current society, but is there any reason why the article can not cover everything that has ever been called the "Oxford Law Society"? The former society may be much more notable and interesting, and then the current society could just be briefly mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be unreasonable IMO. The back issues of Verdict (here) may help with the earlier history, and as Jurisprudence finals finish today any undergraduate contributors will be free to do the research ...if they've nothing better to do! - Pointillist (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even including previous iterations of similarly named organizations, will there yet be enough coverage in reliable sources? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear exactly when it died out, and don't think my previous comment ("in the early 1960s") can be correct. The full Solo record for Verdict says: "Summary Holdings: v.1:no.1(1963)-v.5:no.2(1969:summer); no.2(1984:Michaelmas)-2007:Hilary [incomplete];" so it looks more likely that it has died and been resurrected twice, once at the end of the 1960s and again at some time in the 1990s. The people who run it now may have access to resources from its earlier incarnation(s), and anyone with a Bodleian card can consult the back issues of Verdict at the St Cross Building. I don't expect to be in Oxford for a while, so I can't help. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (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.