Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Michigan Residence Halls Association

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 Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Residence Halls Association[edit]

Fails to satisfy WP:N, specifically WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources and "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. Noetic Sage 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no outside notability. Midwest Peace (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - until the nominator adopts a non-cryptic nomination: avoid cryptic language. Tarinth (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, then, Delete because it doesn't meet the guidelines on notability and specifically on notability (organizations and companies). I don't think it's bad to use these abbreviations here, as long as they are Wikilinks: someone taking part in AfD discussions needs to understand these guidelines, and if he doesn't know what WP:ORG means, it's a good thing for him to click on it and read the guideline. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ~~think~~ hold as i have consistently held that the rule is or should be, and the practice generally is, that the major student organizations in the major colleges are notable. This is an interesting one, per the article--I had not realized that there were multiple parallel organisations in some of the largest schools. In this case, i think it still qualifies, but it would be limited to the very largest and best known universites. DGG (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because you think something is notable doesn't make it notable. The fact is that the article fails to establish notability on all aspects of WP:ORG.—Noetic Sage 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice This AfD has been posted on the WikiProject Universities talk page since they are the project that deals with university-related articles. —Noetic Sage 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussions or Merge into University of Michigan. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has no secondary sources, but come on, there are tons of them out there. A quick search turns up this http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US252&um=1&tab=wn&q=RHA+%22university+of+michigan and I'm certain that the school paper has tons of topics covered. A quick selection includes:

Hobit (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am afraid that your search was flawed since many of the RHA results actually refer to different organisations; Reproductive Health Associates and others. Of the three sources you have specified, two discuss smoking bans and the other, the Association joining in with a student voting initiative. None address the association as such nor describe anything notable that the association has achieved. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the web search, the the three links certainly indicate notability. RHA passed the smoking ban. So the article is about what RHA did and how it goes from there. The other one is about MSA and RHA doing a voting drive. You really can't expect to find anything about a government organization other than what it does, who runs it, etc. Certainly non-trival secondary sources. And these were the first few I found searching google for "Daily News" RHA (Daily News is apparently the main/only school paper.) Hobit (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - School newspapers do not qualify as secondary sources, nor are they reliable. The High Beam source you included is simply a transcription of one of the school newspaper articles. As I noted in my nomination, if you do a simple search on Google you find nothing independent of the school itself.—Noetic Sage 01:33, 3 February 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.