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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Student Union

[edit]

Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). Article also has very, very little infotmation, none of which is particularly notable enough to be merged with the parent article, University of Winchester. _TheIslander 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you note that is actually a proposed guideline that has not yet been adopted and that very part of the guideline is currently under discussion on the talk page. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not merely only proposed, but wholly irrational. This is a good way of organising such articles. it gives a place to put all the clubs and miscellaneous groups for which people would otherwise nominate individual articles. This way of doing things should be encourage, not deleted. Obviously the talk page there needs additional input, because it should firmly be rejected. If the article is too short, addall the other possible material. DGG (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please re-read my argument, specifically "Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources...". This is the basis for my nomination, and this is based on non-negotiable policy. My next statment, about the proposed policy, just backs this up, and I see no problem in doing that bearing in mind that I've made it crystal clear that it's just that - a proposed policy. _TheIslander 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although short there is no reason to delete this article. I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. The argument about the article potentially failing a proposed policy is also poor. Andy Hartley (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 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.