Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers (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 no consensus. Despite multiple relists, participants do no seem to agree on whether the sources covering this group are sufficient to establish notability. Although there are two independent sources, it is not clear whether they satisfy WP:AUD or if they are too limited in audience (one being local and the other a specialized newsletter). RL0919 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and not worth the WP:ATD of a merge/redirect to University of Nottingham Students' Union. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some WP:RS, including Ringing World and several articles from Nottingham Evening Post (AGF) that would qualify notability under WP:GNG. However, the preponderance of the text is woefully bereft of references. If there are not independent, reliable, secondary sources to support at least each paragraph, as tagged now, the article needs to be trimmed back to what is reliably sourced, not deleted entirely. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite as suggested above using the aforementioned reliable sources such as Ringing World and Nottingham Evening Post, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly needs a massive rewrite that should remove a lot off non-wikipedian material as well as adding sources. I am inclined to suggest Delete, but allow a new article to be created using reliable sources and proper Wikipedian language. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the comments below, I now move to Keep. --Bduke (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be general consensus that the subject is notable. Without a WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP issue, I don't see any reason why we should blow it up and lose the article history. Replace the bad writing with good writing, by all means. But bad writing is a fixable problem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN student society. The fact that it is well verified does not make it notable. It would be a rare student society that was WP notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources fall short of the provision about significant coverage, owing to the fringe status of outlets such as Ringing World or local newspapers. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources myself, and found nothing that's both substantive and reliable. Verifiability isn't enough; coverage also needs to cover the topic in minimal detail, and I see no evidence of that. Furthermore, I don't see how the Ringing World source contributes toward notability; as its own article documents, it has fairly trivial circulation. The other local sources are also questionable in this respect. At the very least, this needs to be turned into a stub. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the references list as the publication of the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers. Niche, certainly, but I can't see why it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for our purposes here. It doesn't seem to be connected to this subject in a way that would make it not independent. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only a question of reliability, but also of what sort of audience the source is reaching. Coverage in a magazine with very little circulation does not tell us that the subject of that coverage is very significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. "Nottingham Evening Post" is clearly local, and there's no indication what "Ringing World" even is and why it is supposed to be a reliable source. Sandstein 15:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have The Ringing World as a subsection of another article, and also we are enjoined to assume good faith when a source is not available online and may have only have a weekly circulation of 2,627. To the best of my knowledge, GNG and NORG criteria do not include that a source must be mainstream rather than "fringe". This article does appear to meet WP:AUD, as The Ringing World does appear to have a national circulation of bellringers across the UK, and its 100th anniversary celebration in 2011 included a a service at Westminster Abbey. As I said above, all of the unreferenced text should be cut, but not the whole article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited out the unreferenced statements, leaving text that still needs some editing. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringing World does have a website with issues back to 2001 behind registration and a paywall, and issues farther back are available for purchase on a DVD. The 2006 issue cited in the article is advertised here. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not clear why the available sources, namely Ringing World and Nottingham Evening Post are sufficient to meet the GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2021 (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.