Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varsity Trip (4th 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. This was a tough call, but essentially we have 2 people wishing to delete the article and 2 people wishing to keep the article. Essentially the users wishing to delete argue there are no secondary sources, those wishing to keep argue there are. As such, I believe that there is no consensus to either keep or delete this article. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip

AfDs for this article:
Varsity Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student society, in fact more like a statement for a student society which is no different to every other university societies, in fact a billion miles, let alone nowhere as notable to even its own rowing societies.

All sources are from its own student magazines and therefore with reliable third party sources Donnie Park (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inexplicably, this article has survived four AfDs, none of which provided a convincing case for notability. I'll look over the sources and possibly comment on the article's merits later. ThemFromSpace 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it survived 3 AfDs and claims to be supported by reliable third party sources, such a shame nobody can get off their backside to improve the quality of this article nor use those sources to make it less vulnerable to future AfD. In all, I'd say more like a statement for a student society with sources coming from their own websites which dosen't make it as special as it claims to be. Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Donnie Park (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varsity trip by the way, so this is the 5th nomination. Reading through all the past AFD to try to understand why this thing was around, I found some good points made. This has been getting coverage since 1922, they older than the winter Olympics, this the longest-running team ski competition in the world. Their games do get coverage then and now. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. All I could find is sporadic press coverage, usually of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, often based on press releases and promotional material provided by the association itself. Far to little to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are some sources not currently used in the article:
Despite all of these news items which are basically reporting the same incident from early 2011, I could find nothing in WP:Secondary sources about the early establishment of the trip, about the significance of the trip, about comparisons between the trip and the Olympics, etc. I found nothing whatsoever about the trip in books. If this article is kept it should be trimmed of all tables and history, trimmed down to the most basic statements about the sort of debauchery which made the news, and moved to a more descriptive title such as Cambridge and Oxford ski trip scandal. Me, I would prefer to see the article deleted than some silly scandal given its own article. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Students cavorting half-naked in the snow simulating sex acts and eating, gasp, yellow snow doesn't even register as a blip on my debauchometer, and surprised it even raised an eyebrow in this day and age. Must have been a very, very slow news day. Can't see how an article about students acting silly would deserve a place here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has only two links from other articles to it, making it suffering from WP:O. I think I would vote for a weak delete, for being orphaned, and a lack of notable people for who, for example, this might have been a stepping stone to the Winter Olympics. Or organizers who became important politicians or businessmen. But maybe I am not valuing the event on its merits, and for that, relisting it again might be the best option.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:24, 25 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.