Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Washington


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Students of the University of Washington

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. &mdash;RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.".   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Not inherently notable, but ASUW still has a number of reliable sources that have yet to be included. They were also involved in Washington State Supreme Court case GOOD v. ASSOCIATED STUDENTS.— Noetic  Sage  18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the first and third results on the link Noetic Sage provided establish notability - involved in Washington Supreme Court Case, recognized by Washington State as a historical "Century Corporation."--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for whatever reason, this one has attracted national recognition. Paddy Simcox (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. This student government may be notable, but the article has no sources. I suggest merging it into the parent article. If, at some future point, the subject is well-sourced and long enough to stand on its own, it can once more be spun off into an independent article. Lovelac 7 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sourcing, enough encyclopedic information, good editing as a merge for other information.DGG (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This SU actually has reliable sources as mentioned by NoeticSage's Google News search link (esp the supreme court case).  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.