This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-06. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Australia: Sydney / Education Low‑importance

	Australia portal Sydney University Liberal Club is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled[edit]

Article clearly written by pro SULC people. Does not present balanced POV. Michellecrisp 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence from the article do you have to support this claim? LibStu 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering I just spoke to Michelle Crisp, who denies making this claim, the fact that you decided to participate in identity fraud says a lot about your integrity and credibility.LibStu 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statements like "the Sydney University Liberal Club (SULC) has long been the bastion of conservative and classical liberal political ideology on campus" indicate clear bias. pretty clear to me Libstu you're a member of SULC. I am Michelle Crisp of Brisbane. Does it occur to you that there may be a namesake. Michellecrisp 14:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously i'm a Liberal, I make no claims to the contrary - my username should give it away. However, I fail to see what in that statement qualifies as bias. The Liberal club IS the only political club on campus that advocates a conservative and/or classical liberal political ideology. All other political clubs - and there are many of them - advocate various shades of left-leaning policies. Re your name, I foundit rather suspicious - to put it mildly - that we have a SULC member with an identical name. And that for someone from QLD you seem to spend a lot of your time with intricate knowlege of NSW Liberal Politics, particularly attacking some people. Also the fact that all your posts started 2 days ago made me more suspicious. LibStu 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gee Libstu, if that's your evidence, blow me over with a feather! My information is all from newspaper websites. I joined Wikipedia 2 days ago. is that a crime? you have to start somewhere. I was originally Michelle Timmins, then married to Crisp this year. Yes I have lived in Sydney but moved to Brisbane. reveal your real name before you accuse further. Michellecrisp 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I said "found it" suspicious - past tense. I was explaining the reasons behind my initial assumption, I did not repeat them. As always, if mistaken, I apologise. Furthurmore, you still fail to address any of the substantive issues I raised in my last comment here. LibStu 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apology accepted. the original comment sounds like an advertisement. not saying it's incorrect just needs to be worded for Wikipedia standards.

do we really need a complete list of Presidents? Michellecrisp 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams for Lowe[edit]

yeah Nick Adams and Tom Watson!

Neutrality[edit]

Considering Jim Carlton was the only former Club President to be a Cabinet Minister, why is the neutrality of this statement disputed? Secondly, considering the unanimous consensus of every academic, journalist, historian, politician and political commentator is that the Federal Liberal Party at the moment of the 'dry' or 'conservative' nature, why is the neutrality of this disputed?LibStu 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, use of "most famous" or "best" etc. is not NPOV. It's a subjective judgement of you. If it's backed by every blah blah blah where are the references? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a promotional tool, Mr Potts. Michellecrisp 06:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most famous? That's like saying the "most famous song in the world" or the "most famous tennis player in the world". There is no objective measure. even though I would regard Jim Carlton as the most famous but that's my opinion only. And thriving? How do you define that, Ben? Being behind Federal Labor in the polls is not thriving. Ben, where is the proof of "unanimous consensus of every academic, journalist, historian, politician and political commentator" have you spoken to each one? I'm sure Opposition politicians wouldn't agree. shows real bias on LibStu/Ben Potts part. by the way, I'm not a political member, more a swinging voter. but Wikipedia can't degenerate into pro-political propaganda for any party. 210.56.68.114 11:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please stop calling me Ben. You have no evidence of this. Secondly though, what I am referring to is that the wet/dry debate in the parliamentary wing of the Federal Liberal party has came down conclusively on the side of the dries.LibStu 11:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, the evidence is in your talk page. If you are misrepresenting others in the executive of the SULC then it's pretty bad form. that's unless you go to Macquarie Uni as you recently claim and are of Chinese heritage.. If you are talking wet/dry then spell it out, Ben. Michellecrisp 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A political club's Wikipedia entry is bias??? What an outrage! Who would have thought a political club could be bias??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epponneerai (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former presidents[edit]

The list is not necessary in my opinion, for someone's name to appear on Wikipedia they must satisfy WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people, only a few on the former Presidents list satisfy this. otherwise this becomes a Liberal club advert. see Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia#List_membership_criteria. also simply being a President of a notable organisation such as this club does not make you notable, you need to have a record of significant achievement. Michellecrisp 13:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of SULC all its former presidents are considered notable by its members. As this is a page on SULC, its history and beliefs, its Presidents should also be recognised as they are instrumental in shaping the course of the club. The list is necessary as it documents the history of the club - the political leanings of the president are reflective of the club's political leanings at the time. The list of President's provides insight into changes SULC has encountered over its course. Michelle Crisp - your petty squablings over the relevance of listing SULC's president's on a SULC page is sheer idiocy. Are you aware of what a president is or what it does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epponneerai (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest WP:CIVIL. The Presidents list has stayed since I raised this concern in August 2007. Matter over. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]