Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bath Spa University Students' Union


 * 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 Merge/Redirect The lack of reliable sourcing is clearly a concern that the keep side have failed to overcome but there does appear to be consensus that some of the material can me merged to Bath Spa University. Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bath Spa University Students' Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GROUP. non-notable, no significant coverage in third party sources. Aka042 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recognised university society and part of national network, see Category:English students' unions. Cjc13 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This Students' Union is just like many more in England and elsewhere, and many have articles in Wikipedia. I admit to the lack of other references, but the same could be said of other such articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as it seems the arguments above are very close to the arguments discussed in that section. Just because other similar articles exist does not mean this one should automatically be included; instead, the article must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:N).  None of the three sources listed on the page are independent: two are from the organizaiton's own web site and another is a link to a facebook page.  --Aka042 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in many independent student guides such as in the Guardian, which describes it as "a well established music venue". Cjc13 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly consider one sentence to be "significant" coverage. --Aka042 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge or Redirect to Bath Spa University. The main article has plenty of room for the miniscule amount of sourced information about this run-of-the-mill organisation. A standalone article for this topic is inappropriate; there are no secondary sources that analyze it. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect per the above. Clearly fails the test of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what other WP articles are out there. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The topic might be best dealt with as a section in the article about the university but this will not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep'  The student association of a major university is a first order division of the university and justifies an article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a "first order division"? What policy or guideline are you referring to that says divisions are entitled to an article when they have no secondary sources? Because College and university article guidelines says the opposite. What evidence is there that this is a "major" university? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Bath Spa University unless sources can be found to establish notability in its own right. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some other sources that describe other projects that the group has been involved in. I believe that they are notable enough to have a separate article. Silver  seren C 20:00, 10 April 2010 (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.