Talk:Wisconsin Hoofers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wisconsin (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Query about merger of Wisconsin Hoofers into University of Wisconsin - Madison article - Discussion[edit]

The person who suggested merger did not give reasons. I'm not sure that merging the Wisconsin Hoofers article into the general University of Wisconsin - Madison article would help things. The Hoofer clubs are definitely a part of the University, but they are a unique type of organization that encompasses numerous activities that are outside of normal campus life. Here is a list of other outing clubs that seem to be the focus of articles: [1].

It could also be merged into the Memorial Union (Wisconsin) article since it is a part of the Union, but it seems to me that doing so would add unnecessary complexity to the other articles without adding any clarity or ease of use.

The material in the Hoofers article does not overlap that in the other articles, although it is related to them. It does not duplicate information in those articles. It does not require information from those articles to form a context. It is currently brief, but has great possibility for expansion. I would say that this doesn't meet the criteria for merger. Help:Merging and moving pages FleetCaptain (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted as discussion in response to the "merge to" tag on this page on March 12. That note had been placed there by Corvus Cornix without any explanation. Since there was no response to what I posted and since Corvus Cornix did not give any reasons, it seems inappropriate to leave the merge to tag in this article now. FleetCaptain (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I am making an informal proposal to merge Hoofer Sailing Club into Wisconsin Hoofers. Any comments? Lordmontu (talk)(contribs) 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Wisconsin Hoofers. -- BaronLarf 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This section has been copied from Talk:Hoofer Sailing Club. --BaronLarf 06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this sailing club meets the notability guidelines for organizations. The references given are very minor mentions in rather local news sources. I would suggest that the article be merged with the [Hoofer outdoor adventure clubs]. I confess that an additional motivation is that the article has also been subjected to multiple attacks from (presumably) disgruntled ex-members for several years now, and keeping the article free of serious BLP violations is becoming rather tedious. (BTW, I have semi-protected it for now). There is point to this when a topic is notable, but I really don't believe this club is. Frankly, I suspect club members may actually prefer not to have to worry about the defamation that has been hitting this article over the years. Comments please.--Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT I agree with Slp1's comments about Hoofer Sailing Club's lack of notability. But even if the club was notable, that should not prevent the article from being merged into Wisconsin Hoofers, as I believe is the proposal. Lordmontu made the same suggestion a year ago, and has shown below that he also agrees. --BaronLarf 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Support per nom. I do think the club as a whole is notable, but there is no reason to give just the sailing portion of it its own article.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.