Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1 in 12 Club

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 in 12 Club

Can't find any evidence this collective meets WP:N or WP:ORG. Sources are either primary or insubstantial coverage (event listings); I couldn't find any significant independent coverage in online searches. Jfire (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously needs more work but, as one of the longer-standing examples of a UK social center, undoubtedly notable. I'd hope, with time, the article could be expanded and improved to something akin to the Cowley Club. I'd concede that mainstream sources are inherently going to be difficult to find, given the nature of the club, but their current absence from a stub-type article doesn't indicate a lack of notability. MisterVodka (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep--Mujinga, I am pleased you were able to dig up those references, which establish notability and allow for the writing of a more objective article on a notable topic (though my earlier comments on the first three sources, I believe, still stand). Delete. The Guardian reference proves that the place exists; the other two references are hardly in-depth or third-party. Looks like a great club to me, but this is not a WP topic--and BTW, it is written in a very, very promotional tone. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The 1 in 12 is certainly notable - one reason for the failure of online searches to turn up much is that it depends on how you spell the name. Another reason is that the club has actually been going quite a long time so there should be paper rather than online references. Cheers for relisting Aitias, I'm actually working on the article now. I agree that the article in its previous state was worthy of deletion but I am now adding references and removing cruft. I think this article was in need of help, not deletion. If anyone wants to be more thorough with the cruft removal, go right ahead and I will be adding some more references later in the week when I dig them out. Let's discuss this on the article talk page if anyone is interested. Mujinga (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mujinga's work clearly shows there are more references available (and better ones) than the nominator originally found in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough here to establish notability. No reason to plead for an exception here. Wily D 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the tone and content are things which can be fixed. To delete this item would leave a gaping in the UK_Social_Centre_Network subject area. As noted above the citations are problematic due to the club's long history and turbulent inception pre-dating the automatic inclusion of news items on the internet. However I think I can track down some documentation to scan and add links in the next few weeks. Also - for the elimination of doubt - the club is still very active and has (for example) a remarkable anarchist library. Furthermore, from the point of view of encyclopaedic utility, it seems perverse at the very moment we head back into mass unemployment to delete the history of a still-surving response to the last bout .--Bradford2009 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it would be cool if you could add more refs Bradford2009, i just added two more, and in my view the article certainly shouldn't be deleted now, but i think more work is still needed to make this a good article. i agree with Drmies that the original refs were not so strong Mujinga (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the references that Mujinga found. Schuym1 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (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.