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. Consensus is that the union is notable. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMUnion[edit]

MMUnion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Well, there is nothing notable other than anything trivial. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete UK SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. _TalkIslander 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major functional division of universities. almost qall colleges have one, and the ones at the more important colleges and universities are separately notable. DGG (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this one separately notable? Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and it's the rare one (not this one) that has any external notability. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this SU is notable as for 20 years, until the merger of UMIST and Victoria University in Manchester it was the largest non-collegiate University in the country and hence the largest non-collegiate SU in the country. It was also notable as the most left wing SU in the country during the 1980's, (in)famous for its support of the miners during the miners strike. I agree that the content has at times resembled promo leaflet but that has been removed, and yes it can be improved, but Student Unions are, whether they recognise it or not, an integral part of the life of the 50% of 18-21 year olds who go to higher education - from the organisastion of sport and societies, representations and campaigns, democracy and politcal debate, to the advancement of entertainment and a wide and varied social life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrandir1967 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Yes, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Freshman? Studied at the faculty? Do you know anything about UK students' unions? This sounds like a American attack to me! Andy (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Come on, let's keep it civil... It seems fairly clear that Knock-off-Nigel speaks from an American viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly doesn't warrent any 'attack' comments, but regardles, hear me out (me being a second year Physics student at a UK university, me being fairly heavily involved in my Union, me being well aware of what UK SUs are). Student Unions are notable as a whole. Individual SUs are not. They are all pretty much carbon copies of one another - sure, one union will have slightly different policies than another, but on the whole they'll be the same. As I've said many a time, there are exceptions - a few UK SUs are notable, and they have the sources to back them up. Most, however, do not. I'm interested: you are completely insistant that SUs are notable. Why is this particular SU notable? How does it meet the WP:N guidelines? I await your response. _TalkIslander 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Andymmu OK, I mean freshers, I used to study in a university in the UK, I use the word to incorporate colleges and universities together. Personally, I agree with the islander's comment that a few of them are notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Islander That'll teach my for not checking Wikipedia for a few days! In answer to your question, I simply believe that an organization with over 33,000 members is notable. As far as WP:N is concerned, I'm not going to pretend that this article clearly passes but the union's history in its support for the minors' strike looks to give it notability with WP:N#TEMP. Unfortunately, I know little about the details of this. Perhaps Mithrandir1967 could fill in any info he's got. Andy (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mithrandir1967. Plus this article had already reached no consensus to delete in December. I don't think it's been long enough to nominate it again. Is this a campaign by numbers? Andy (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My reason is this appalling quality of this article which serves to spam its service, therefore it deserves to be deleted, plus I only came across this recently and disagree on its original verdict. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality alone is not grounds for deletion please consult WP:ATD. -- BpEps - t@lk 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there is no other useful third party sources there other than some trivial fact about some reality TV show pop puppet and some scandals and other trivial things. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Union with a rich history (formally MPSU) -- BpEps - t@lk 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What rich history. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock-Off Nigel, you have to remember that many of the people commenting here are not familiar with all the policies and guidelines, and the idea is to gently educate them. Given that he called it "formerly MPSU", perhaps he could actually lead us to some sources that would confer notability on this organization. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok I can't find much about (MPSU) it was before the internet. There is a new "article hit counter" - actually the figures aren't glowing avg. 210 hits for MMU WP hit counter MMU Dec07, I'm not sure why the current cull on Students' Unions, they are the breeding ground for the next generation of politicians (lol don't quote WP:CRYSTAL) and have much higher membership figures than mainstream political orgaisations. However I can't offer very much more sourcing. -- BpEps - t@lk 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reason given for failing WP:N as watertight as the Titanic. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't really think it is that notable on its own, considering every university have its own SU. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the union is notable and all students belong to it. It has been kept on previous AfD ad its status has not changed since then. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to be crystal clear, it wasn't kept as such in the last AfD - merely defaulted to keep as there was no concencus, as will possibly be the case here. _TalkIslander 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reasons as Loughborough, but the title needs attention sicne it contains an abbreviation, possibly MMUnion (Manchester Metrolopitan University). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The title refers to what is currently the correct name of the union. Manchester Metropolitan Students' Union redirects to the article. Andy (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nobody is saying to remove all information on these, just that it needs to be on the university's page. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with replying to every argument? Let others make their arguments and the closing admin will make their decision based on their strength. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though it may need some work. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily grounds for deletion. There are third party references and sources cited, which is the important thing, and though it needs some more, these shouldn't be too hard to find. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (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.