Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc @ UNSW Limited

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arc @ UNSW Limited[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group may have some history and significant membership in the past (well, it was free), but I do not see any in-depth discussion of this outfit to make it notable by our standards, either GNG or CORP. Newspaper mentions are one thing but don't make an organization notable.

The article was nominated in 2006, under its old name; that discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACN 121 239 674 Limited, ended in "keep" despite a complete lack of discussion of sources, and voters seemed to think that existence automatically meant notability. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not decrease over time, and "history and significant membership" is an absolute whopper of an understatement. This is a major and very notable student organisation dating back decades (with significant, high-level mainstream media coverage dating back decades). In 2006, the federal government changed the law in a way that made many organisations (UNSW included) have to reorganise their corporate structure (and the 2006 discussion was right in the middle of that, hence the keep with the weird name), but that doesn't magically eliminate their notability. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about student organisations today, but you've bizarrely gone and nominated two of the most (really obviously) well-covered campus organisations in the southern hemisphere. It took me about five minutes to track down plenty of sources, but I'm disinclined to have to go through libraries (yes, we're talking book-detail coverage, not passing-mention-in-newspaper) unless the nominator were to, say, accept a three-day ban as compensation for wasting editors' time. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that this editor didn't see to fit to actually add those references to the article, or list them here and explain their relevance. "Notability does not decrease over time" may be true, but it is also true that in the discussion from 2006 no one actually had any real arguments, let alone evidence. The Drover's Wife has plenty of passion and plenty of insults, but I wish they had a desire to actually improve these articles. They could look, for instance, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and start pruning these lists of student clubs--but perhaps they want Wikipedia to function as websites for these clubs.
  I appreciate their as-yet unproven diligence, but have to kindly decline their offer of a "three-day ban" (I'm not quite sure what that is, anyway). Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're talking organisations with long, well-documented public histories and where the best stuff, especially if people are going to be querulous about it, is probably in books (certainly the less recent, more overview-like material). And when someone is willy-nilly nominating notable organisations: what do I get out of this besides limiting their damage? That's the kind of effort that would mean I would have to drop what I'm currently working on and run to stop someone else vandalising the place, and that's not the kind of situation where I feel very enthusiastic about spending a week in a library fleshing these articles out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable, and has encyclopedic value. Unclear why nominator wishes to delete. Aeonx (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable organisation that will have ongoing social and historical currency in Sydney Australian Matt (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (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.