Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton New University Government


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Carleton New University Government

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article do not satisfy WP:ORG and sounds like an advertisement (the banner especially make think of that as an ad or a work from a nug member). Esurnir 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is quite silly. First, 'advertisement?' if the self-righteous member above had read the article he would have seen that is ceased to exist in it's current form as of March 30th 2007. The banner was from the old website (before it was taken down). Secondly I am the one that put it up and I and others are trying to compile a database of knowledge about this organization that played a key part in the lives of students at Carleton for 39 years. I tried as hard as I could to make it unbiased and stick to the facts of what the organization did. There is no real point of extending to hyperbole since the ORGANIZATION DOES NOT EXIST and can thus easily be analyzed in it's entirely truthfully.

We would like to use Wikipedia to allow others to learn about the student organization, the history, etc allowing those who are experts in different area or time-periods to flush out those areas/periods. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia? I am very disappointed in the actions of the above 'member' and his attempts to limit the constrictive expansion of knowledge on the internet and free speech. My previous comment was completely ignored by him. As pointed out previously this article is in approximately the same style and wording as other comparable groups (Ontario Student Unions) which are NOT challenged. This is a perfect example of using Wikipedia for what it was supposed to be used for, to increase the public knowledge for public good.Smartstart1376 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You may wish to read What Wikipedia Is Not. The phrase you use above, "we would like to use Wikipedia to . . ." is a red flag that perhaps you do not fully understand the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.  However, I do appreciate your contributions, and hope that once you have reached a greater understanding of How Wikipedia Works, you will continue to add value to Wikipedia's database.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry for the misunderstanding I may have mis phrased one line after typing this out three times and having my comments summarily ignored. I did not mean to imply some sort of conspiracy, etc. I was attempting to get at the root of what I see as Wikipeida a form of collective action in collection of knowledge. *I* am hoping to add to the knowledge of Wikipeida by adding something I am knowledgeable about. This article does not fall under the things Wikipedia is not, it is knowledge collected from many sources, the beginning of a collaboration on group knowledge. The information provided is quite akin to that of other comparable groups which were not deleted...Smartstart1376 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, fails WP:ORG. I strongly urge Smartstart1376 to, rather than taking upset at editors properly gauging this article in light of Wikipedia policy, to follow Carolfrog's prudent advice and the supplied links to learn how articles should be written and what the required standards of verification and notability are.    Ravenswing  15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: The nominator is correct in that this does not comply with Wikipedia policy.  . V .  [Talk 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, student government organizations are not typically notable to anyone outside the school, and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. NawlinWiki 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless legitimate sources can be provided to show this had some kind of impact on the wider world, or served as the model for student bodies nationwide or something similar, this is no different to a hundred thousand other student bodies. The article also contradicts itself, with parts talking about no longer existing and parts talking about the future —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No indepedent external sources. Nothing to show how it is notable outside of the university in anyway. Does not meet other standards for WP:ORG etc. $1 levy? My uni had $200 levi's and it still wasn't big enough to be notable.--Dacium 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but if the organization wishes to be in WP, it should try to do some notable things of interest to the wider community that will get media coverage from outside the school. (It might even want to do them quite apart from WP), This isn't impossible for a student organization, but it's fairly rare. DGG' 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: Good advice that I would pass on but organization no longer exists in current form. See article for more information on the organization.Smartstart1376 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Utter lack of notability and sourcing. --RaiderAspect 10:25, 1 May 2007 (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.