Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deakin University Student Association


 * 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   redirect to Deakin University. v/r - TP 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Deakin University Student Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this student union certainly does exist, and the university that it is part of is notable, the union itself does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. It has 30 gnews refs, but they are primarily simply ones in which an officer of the union is quoted. This very long article has only 1 ref. Much of it appears to be either OR, or perhaps a copy-paste from elsewhere. Tagged for notability for nearly a year. Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lean keep: References in the following sources convince me more likely exist to establish notability: The Age, The Age, The Age, The Age, The Age, The Age, The Age, The Ahe, The Age, The Age, The Age, The Age,  Sydney Morning Herald, Herald Sun.  This was after about 5 minutes of searching in Google.  Probably more sources available in Newsbank. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Which of those constitute non-trivial, substantial, non-passing RS coverage in your view that warrant this student union having a stand-alone article (rather than being discussed, to the level appropriate, in the university article)?  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above argument is one that has been deprecated -- see wp:GHITS.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Deakin University. As Laura shows, the organisation has got a few mentions in major news sources, but none of the articles that I could find (or that Laura references) are predominantly about the DUSA – the DUSA just gets passing mentions. As such, I do not believe that it meets GNG or is independently notable, but a section in the Deakin Uni article would be appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree as to the sources. Also am fine w/a redirect.  A merge would not be appropriate, as the text is completely unreferenced, fails wp:v, is challenged (and I challenged it now), and therefore should not be recreated.  However, once redirected one could create new content, supported by RS refs, about the subject at the target article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point about it being unreferenced. It could probably be argued that some of the external links support some of the content, but a straight redirect would be fine with me. (Any useful info can always be found in the history, anyway.) Jenks24 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look. The ELs aren't sufficient.  Per WP:CHALLENGED, once challenged the text requires inline citations, which is why I thought a merge would not be appropriate.  But a redirect would be fine. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * merge The ELs are in my opinion sufficient for at least some of the content, but that can be decided on the article talk p.
 * They are challenged (if not apparent, I challenge them), and per WP:CHALLENGED require inline citations. While they do not have such inline cites, it would not be appropriate to recreate them in a merge, but the article could be redirected and any appropriate content created at the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Most students organisations including this one are separate organisations to Universities themselves. I would point you to any number of existing articles Arc @ UNSW Limited, University of Sydney Union and numerous legitimate references that were included above CHANLORD [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|25px| ]] 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have a number of articles on such organizations. At the same time, there are a great number of such articles that are subsumed as sections within the relevant universities (see, eg, [].  Here, the text is challenged (if not apparent, I challenge it) and suffers from lack of inline citations (per wp:CHALLENGED), and if we wipe out all unreferenced text we have a good redirect candidate, and text can as editors wish be created with refs and created in the target article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Deakin University Most of the content here is not cited at independent, reliable sources. The mention on the University page would appear to be sufficient  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Deakin University To restate the above, the majority of additional content in this article is unsourced and available sources only mention the additional content in passing if at all. The lack of wp:RS for the various societies and clubs would indicate a need to leave that material behind in a merge.  Best to start with a redirect and only add reliably sourced material at the target.  There are enough interested editors at the target to develop that material there. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (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.