Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle University Union Society

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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle University Union Society[edit]

Another Students' Union which completely fails to assert notability, for example through a lack of external links to independant sources. Fails WP:N. _TheIslander 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no evidence of notability. Hal peridol (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All such societies are important, as a major division of their respective universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 December 2007
Keep (anon. IP vote) This article is no more or less notable as University of Manchester Students' Union, University of Leicester Students' Union, ect and I don't see them being picked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.184.52 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007
- Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _TheIslander 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:39, 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 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Francium12 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable - It's attached to a Russell Group University, the building itself it a Grade II listed building according to the article, and the organization seems pretty alright at organizing their fresher's week, something that seems to be a big deal amongst student unions, I'd say this sounds like one of the more notable ones. EditorInTheRye (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "...and the organization seems pretty alright at organizing their fresher's week, something that seems to be a big deal amongst student unions, I'd say this sounds like one of the more notable ones." Huh? Your other arguments I can see completely, but this one I don't get. Freshers' weeks are always organised by the SU, so how's this one any different? _TheIslander 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the praise from the 2002 Guardian article mentioned in the events section. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:06, 11 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) 03:01, 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.