Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Melbourne student organisations

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 merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne student organisations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There's probably any number of grounds to delete this article. It fails WP:GNG, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Moreover, there are probably other grounds to delete it, such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies - the fact that Melbourne University has clubs and societies is notable, so there is room to include relevant information on the merged page without violating any Wikipedia policies. Deus et lex (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that sourcing is primary on that section. Arguably, that section should be deleted too. And in fact, arguably the entire University of Melbourne Student Union needs to nominated for deletion as well (though i haven't searched for reliable sources yet.) But if there are no reliable significant sources for 'Melbourne University student organisations' then what would you propose to merge? We shouldn't merge unsourced/unreliably sourced material. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Melbourne Student Union has been in existence since 1884 - student societies for the big universities like Melbourne and Sydney have a strong history and significant notability going back a long time. Some of the individual clubs and societies will also have their own history and existence. There's enough there to justify some merging. Deus et lex (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant see WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. But I can't see what you're actually proposing to merge? Unsourced information? ... If you want to write about these clubs on on the University of Melbourne Student Union article, well, then you can? I don't see how that's relevant to this AFD. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand me. It's not "unsourced information", I'm saying that there are sources there on University of Melbourne student organisations (due to their long history) and they are notable, so while it's not necessary to keep this page you can merge a scaled down version onto the Uni of Melbourne student union page. This is a sensible alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your position because I'm not sure what information would actually be worthy of merging there. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me indicate my relationship with Melbourne University. I am a retired academic. My last and only job in Australia was at Charles Darwin University. I now have a adjunct position at Monash University Parkville Campus. However, I have visited Melbourne University many times. University of Melbourne student organisations have a long history and I am sure that there are many sources. I am inclined to say keep, but a merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies would be an acceptable. I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly understand your position either. Are you proposing just to redirect this page (which essentially deletes it anyway)? And if so, what material do you actually want carried over? Keep in mind the fact that material should be supported by reliable secondary sources which attest to such material being suitable for an encyclopedia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I think it is highly likely that reliable sources can be found for much of the material, but that needs a serious look for such sources, but it needs some work which I do not have time for right now. There is a long history here and many of the sources will not be on the internet. Let us leave some Melbourne Uni people time to look for them. --Bduke (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then it's unclear what information you want to "merge" per se. People are free at any time to find reliable sources (if they exist) and write about clubs on the University of Melbourne Student Union article. Deleting University of Melbourne student organisations article doesn't really prevent anyone from doing that. This just looks a like a DIRECTORY featuring lots of ORGANISATIONS which are NOT NOTABLE. Your position isn't clear to me: because on the one hand it sounds like you are arguing that this article meets notability requirements...but on the other hand you are saying to merge which would suggest that it doesn't meet notability requirements...and then on the other-other hand you're also not saying which information actually should be merged. To me it seems like you can logically hold one of positions, but you can't hold all three positions at once. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do go on a lot! Merging does not always mean the topic is not notable. It can be done to just bring things together if that makes sense. I am not saying which information actually should be merged because I do not have access to sources that will record the history of Melbourne University, but knowing academics and universities with a long history I am sure they exist and will be available. Not all information is found by google. Now let us see what others have to say.--Bduke (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a "WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST" argument, which is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also I'm still not sure what you actually propose to merge, some random unsourced stuff about some political club...it doesn't feel like it would belong on the University of Melbourne Student Union page. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been in some discussions on another page with some editors where they have all been really collaborative and helping to improve a page. Apples&Manzanas I think you could learn a lot from them about collaboration, instead of just citing multiple Wikipedia policies (some of which don't seem to apply) and using capital letters helps in this instance. Deus et lex (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really understand how deletion discussions work. I'm actually trying to be collaborative with you, but you're not making your position clear to me. It's very common to link to Wikipedia policies, in capital letters, on AFDs...That's a totally normal thing, don't think of capital letters as a sign of something bad. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say that you making a pretty bad job of it, so much so that I have given up commenting on this deletion. You have proposed this for deletion, and so far nobody has agreed with you. So please just stop editing here, as I have (apart from this edit), leave it to others to comment, and an admin to close it.--Bduke (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making things personal when all I've ever done is discuss Wikipedia policies (discuss edits, not editors). If you have no desire to discuss any Wikipedia policies with me, then I can't force you to...feel free to ignore me. But I would suggest that AFDs are a very appropriate to discuss Wikipedia's policies as they relate to deletion. That's literally what we're here for. We're not here to discuss whether we prefer to eat beef or chicken. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2020 (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.