Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sheffield Union of Students

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 per consensus, whilst this article strictly speaking falls a little short of the WP:NOTE guideline it meets the core policy of WP:V and as no guidelines regards student organizations yet exist I'm going with the clear consensus to Keep for now. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sheffield Union of Students[edit]

Another non-notable Students' Union. Most, if not all, of the information in this article is already available in the main article. 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). _TheIslander 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or Merge. This article is well-developed and works well as a stand alone article. However, if it is the general consensus of Wikipedians through WP:ORG that organizations of this type should not have a seperate page, then it should be merged into the the University of Sheffield. Billscottbob (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a major university, and this is the main student organization. For significant universities, we have almost always supported the major student union or whatever it may be called, (and the student athletic union where it is the practical main athletic body ofthe university, as often in the UK) practical; but very rarely the individual student clubs and groups. It makes sense to have such an intermediate article--the typical one or two hundred individual student groups makes a very long and disproportionate section into the main university page,which has a great many other topics to discuss. Having a page like this as an intermediate is the obvious way to proceed--the organisations can each get a mention of a paragraph, according to their importance. And thus everyone can be satisfied. WQP lives by consensus, and consensus is attained by compromise. it is wholly misleading to quote a suggested policy as if it were an actual guideline --there is no consensus on that suggested wording. I am glad at least there was no attempt to pretend it was already the policy, tho it seems some people may have missed the caveat--I did at first reading. Well, it call attention of a wider range of people to the proposal there,so we can make sure my an unrepresentative opinion there does not take firm root.DGG (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith - I do not appreciate the statement "it is wholly misleading to quote a suggested policy as if it were an actual guideline" when I made it crystal clear in my reasoning that it was indeed proposed. My argument for the deletion of this article uses that proposed policy to back up my main point. which related to WP:N, one of the core policies on Wikipedia. _TheIslander 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Students' Union is a separate legal entity to the University with its own constitution and Trustees. It makes sense to have separate articles and this practice has been accepted for other large students' unions in the UK. If the artice needs improving that is another issue.John Cross (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources on this large and notable organisation. The current article is a useful start which should be improved upon. Warofdreams talk 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well developed article, if anything the information on the institution's article about the union should be moved to the union's 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. Andy Hartley (talk) 23:09, 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 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with Warofdreams, Francium12 (talk) 01:24, 10 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.