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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Athletic Union[edit]

Durham University Athletic Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —KTC 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - no vote for the time being. I'd consider the statement that DUAU was "ranked 5th across all sports in 2005's BUSA rankings" to be an assertion of notability. I also note that they are 6th this year (out of 148) [1] (I've updated the article thusly). It may not be clear from the article, but DUAU has the legal status of a students' union, and there was some discussion a while back about notability criteria for students' unions. I've left a message for User:Timrollpickering to see if any consensus was achieved, because I can't remember. DWaterson 00:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Timrollpickering and DGG's comments below, Keep for the time being, pending clarification of notability guidelines for student unions. DWaterson 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No vote for now. Students' unions and independent athletic unions need a clear guideline on inherent notability (particularly many of the articles have been created by those less well versed with the requirements on sources et al, and when the first they realise this is an AFD already accumulating delete votes if not already passed it discourages attempts to get the sources in; also any of the potential local sources about them, such as local newspaper coverage, are often not very well archived online), and there seems to be different understandings of what the organisations are in different countries (although I don't deny there are people with both keep and delete views in many of them). Individual AFDs are not a good way to establish precedence on this (especially when terms like "student organisation" get thrown around - that currently redirects to student society and the opening paragraph says to me that a students' union does not fall under that description - it is not a mere student society but a legally constituted entity). Yes there's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that is meant to be "some other non-notable article so far existing doesn't mean this one should" and not a rejoinder to the case that individual AFDs often just punch holes in a collection of articles covering subjects of very similar notability or non-notability and overall make the encyclopedia worse for having an inconsistent set than for if it has all, none, or just a select few. Timrollpickering 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this is indeed the main athletic organisation for the university. In the US where the athletics is mainly organised by the university, no the students, there is a separate article for the athletic endeavors of each important school--and sometimes for the individual teams. I think this would correspond--it's essentially at article on durham University Athletics, and I think such a separate article would be justified wherever the school is important enough. The UK people would have to tell us whether Durham is, but it would seem likely. DGG (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is indeed the main athletic organisation for the university (which incidentally means all types of sport, not just track and field athletics). The university builds and operates some of the sporting facilities directly, but DUAU is in overall charge of all sporting activities and teams (including both the Varsity teams and, to a certain extent, smaller intramural games). DWaterson 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it should be noted that, in contrast to the US where university sports are widely followed by the public, in the UK, with exceptions such as the Boat Race and Oxford/Cambridge/Durham cricket, the interest is negligible (oh, and I played sports for Durham in the past!). TerriersFan 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing showing that this has notability asserting coverage by third parties. i ^said 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in lacking coverage from independent sources. We should not keep student orgs lacking independent coverage Corpx 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as usual for student clubs. All universities have an athletic union, few if any are independently notable. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now as this is a wider matter that needs clear guidelines (especially as the terms "student orgs" and "student clubes" are getting thrown about without clarity as to whether this is one) and a lot of these articles have not had the absence of verifiable sources flagged before the AFD crowd move in. A quick search on LexisNexis yields well over 130 results so there may well be sources. Note to closing admin if the consensus is to delete please can you make this a redirect to Durham University rather than deleting the page history; per the deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barts and The London Students' Association. Timrollpickering 11:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barts was an arguably sub-university Union--this is the main one for the University--that is a distinction that justifies keeping this even if we agreed with the deletion of Barts.DGG (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 16:13, 7 September 2007 (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.