Talk:Funding Our Future

Vote for Students pledge
The article Vote for Students pledge looks like it ought to be merged here. Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've just started work on that article, am planning to add more on the background of the pledge and the consequences, perhaps linking back to here, and also to the 2010 student protests in London. If you still think it should be merged after that then let's discuss, but can you wait for a while to give me a chance to develop it? Thanks, --Hermajesty21 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the material I was aiming for. I still don't think they should be merged, although they are related: I think the pledge article works as a stand-alone and I can't really envisage how best to fit the two articles together (maybe that would be an easier task for someone who's been working on the Funding Our Future article). --Hermajesty21 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Part of the background to the NUS' campaign. Vote for students pledge doesn't need an article all by itself when it can be merged here and therefore has more meaning KnowIG (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing nothing about this issue before reading these pages, it looks pretty clear to me that the pledge itself has received sufficient, independent coverage to have its own page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly nothing about the issue as you say. Do some research and you'll find that it fits into the bigger picture of the funding for our future page. The lib dems made the pledge after the NUS successfully campaigned for higher education to be a talking point of the 2010 election. They went back on themselves hence all this action from the NUS. KnowIG (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing real world connectedness --Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)with Wikipedia standards. Our question is whether or not the particular topic (i.e., the funding pledge) has received sufficient, reliable coverage to make a full article possible.  In this case, it definitely appears that it has.  The issue of "providing context" isn't really relevant.  For example we have articles on Human nose and nose, despite being related issues, and furthermore despite them being parts of larger biological systems/beings.  So, as long as there is significant reliable coverage, there can be a separate article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is only getting the coverage because of the student demos and the fact that the NUS keep banging on about it and are targeting Lib dem MP's hence why I said overall context and therefore should be merged. :) As to me it's strange why a promise which fits into an election campaign should have an article all to itself KnowIG (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I think you both make good points! I think the pledge is definitely notable enough, given the media coverage, to get an article on it's own. But I also see Knowl's point that its not necessarily logical to seperate it from its context. My main worry about merging is that the pledge info would end up "getting lost" in the wider article, especially as articles such as Nick Clegg and 2010 UK student protests now link directly to it. It's a bit strange having a sentence like "Nick Clegg pledged to vote against higher tuition fees" (for example), wikilinked to the middle of a more general article about the Funding Our Future. Still weakly opposed. For now, I'll at least add a sentence about the Funding our future campaign. --Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge For now the article on the pledge itself appears notable as a standalone in coverage. I do see a merge having it getting lost. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the tag as most people seem to be against a merge, and the discussion has died off.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)