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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.