Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Queensland Debating 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 keep‎. This is a procedural Keep based on the comments of the discussion participants who are advocating that this bundled nomination be split up into individual AFDs or, at least, smaller bundles of similar groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Debating Society

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A batch of university debate societies that all fail notability. Coverage tends to fall into one of the following categories:

Primary source to university newspaper
Passing mention as the venue for a talk
Coverage mentioning that a notable person attended said society. Notability is not
WP:INHERITED
WP:NTEAM
, GNG is the standard here.

There's a lot of high quality original research here, but alas I don't think any that can be saved without

WP:TNT

. As a result, I'm also nominating the following articles:

There's a lot more that don't make the cut, but I'll stick to 10 for now and see what reception is like. It sucks to delete so much hard work. There are some debating societies that are undoubtedly notable, but many that unfortunately are not.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you want to float a trial balloon, I'd suggest doing it with one article, not ten. Another way to go might be to redirect the various articles to their associated school
BOLDly, and then bringing any you get pushback on to AfD. This discussion seems pretty unworkable, and the lack of participation seems to bear that opinion out. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I floated the one at
WP:MULTIAFD here, not sure what else I can do. In the spirit of AfD I'll leave open this vote, but if it looks like it will close with no consensus I will boldly play the executioner. BrigadierG (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The idea that the University Philosophical Society "fail[s] notability" is absolutely bizarre and utterly false. The University Philosophical Society is the oldest student society in the world, while also remaining the largest society (not just debating society) in all of Trinity, Ireland's top ranked university. It has a deep and complex history, which is well documented in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article remains (for now) the main source of information about the Society on the internet. Deleting it would achieve absolutely nothing at all yet be a huge loss for anyone researching such a pivotal society in Irish history. I strongly recommend that such an informative article be kept online. 46.7.206.148 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and Scotland. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the previous commenter, I think probably dealing with these individually is the way to go. I'm only interested in
WP:GNG through articles such as [1], although I agree that the article contains a lot based on primary sources and original research too; whether it does meet the thresholds could probably be debated (hah). Procedurally, I think it's better and clearer to consider each of these articles individually. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Dealing these together makes no sense. Just close this and start again. --Bduke (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This is way too many to deal with at once. The results are likely to be heterogeneous as in addition to the possibility of keeps, like University Philosophical Society, merges/redirects are also possible (and should have been considered before the articles were brought here.) --Jahaza (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above. Each needs to be looked at on its own merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2023 (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.