Talk:Cowley Club

Case for notability

As this page has previously been deleted without further explanation, I thought I'd make a case for its existence in case anyone feels like deleting it again. Apologies if this isn't the correct procedure, but I wasn't sure how else to approach the problem...As the problem is likely to be regarding notability, I've added a link to an article about the centre in the Argus newspaper. It is also mentioned by local history publishers Queenspark Books http://www.queensparkbooks.org.uk/books/catalogue_book.html?id=17&p=2 , the guide to the Brighton Festival http://brighton.threeweeks.co.uk/guide_brighton.asp, and critiqued in Do or Die magazine http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no10/space.htm. If that's not considered sufficient please let me know as I'm sure there are other references I could track down if I need to. Thanks. Bobbob94 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cowley Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105722/http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/1/7/143173.html to http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/1/7/143173.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Who was Harry Cowley

• @Czar: Please can you explain your statement "plainly not a reliable source"? I'm struggling to understand why you don't consider it a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
• Regarding "is there really a need for a separate paragraph" yes i'd say so, the article is about the social centre and this paragraph explains why the centre has its name. Mujinga (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

i reverted the edit, it's a week later and no discussion Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(This ping did not send—the post needs to be signed in the same edit.)

The intro to "Who Was Harry Cowley?" plainly states that QueenSpark is a self-publisher of community content anyone can write (p. 3 of PDF) and gives no indication that its contents were vetted for accuracy... which is the bedrock of reliability for an encyclopedia's purposes. The pamphlet cites no sources and has no footnotes.

As for our article's sectioning, the article topic is the social centre and not Cowley. Anything that needs to be said about Cowley should be said thematically in terms of the club's development or history. In other similar articles, we do not give separate sections to discuss the topic's namesake—it is proportionately covered in context of the topic's background, and we already have a section for that.

czar 10:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)