Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia
An enormous list of non-notable people. Why don't we just download the phone book? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Individually many of the people may be non-notable (although a substantial number are notable, including 4 Members of Parliament and other prominent political figures), but the list as a whole is notable, as these are elected officials of a student body which has its own article. Furthermore, there are articles related to the various factions and student bodies, and this provides context as to how much of a role those student associations and factions have in NUS. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note It's also information which, while not being made up, can't be found anywhere else. If this page is deleted there will be no place where a person can find information about who were NUS office bearers, which is very much relevant to the Australian student movement and a lot of people are interested in. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the part where that becomes our problem. So you can't find the information elsewhere. Tough cookies, it's still inappropriate here and should be dealt with accordingly. Delete. --Agamemnon2 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unless these individuals are notable in their own right.  Admitting it can't be found anywhere else kind of makes it hard to verify, as well.  This information should be on their website and not here. --Kinu 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few of these people have yet achieved any notability in Australia. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC) "
 * Delete per Kinu. Fagstein 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The people in the list are not red linked so there is no undue claim of notability, though I do question if the list complies with Verifiability if the information is not available elsewhere. --Martyman- (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. and offer it to their website. psch  e  mp  |  talk  06:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How do we offer it to their website after it's deleted? Is there a procedure for "moving" WP content to another site? - Synapse 22:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most university students have no idea who thse people are - only 10% vote in student elections, and apart from the president - they are all unknwon even within their community.Blnguyen 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue for Keep as it seems to be more significant than many other articles on the site and while many of the past office bearers are not notable now, it is only a matter of time before more are notable (although, speaking as one of the people mentioned in the article, I doubt I will be one of them) and Wikipedia will be seen as having anticipated their rise to power. --Roisterer 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP is not a crystal ball. psch  e  mp  |  talk  08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article? It's not about future people - it's a list of past members. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete...maelgwntalk 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Information about the elected members of a national body is encyclopaedic. - Synapse 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a national organisation. I imagine some people will want to make use of it. But ask for verification. Tyrenius 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Zunaid
 * Weak Keep. Might be a national organization, but is going to need better justification than it has now if it's going to remain, by the looks of the opinions here.--み使い Mitsukai 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Next stop, Canberra phone book, stand clear of the closing doors Avi 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment many student leaders go on to become political leaders. but the NUS is not that relevant to ppl's lives - most students probly have never heard of it. --Sumple (Talk) 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They have a substantial presence at RMIT, most students are familiar with them. (Clarify) with the organisation and what they do, although they don't know many of the people involved. - Synapse 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - none/very few of these people are significant by themselves, why should we have a list of them together? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or slight merge. This list is of interest to a limited number of people and is potentially very large or indefinite in size. In other words, it is listcruft. Should be on their website. Stifle 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is of interest to plenty of people - it's particularly informative about the early careers of the quite a few people who have gone on to achieve significant success afterwards. It's also very definite in size - as the NUS has only existed since the late 1980s, it's nearly complete as-is. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been thinking about this a bit since this discussion started. I understand people's concerns about this not being encyclopedic, and it is true that this list isn't. So it's alright that it gets deleted from Wikipedia. However, I've found that it's been very successful in getting people to add extra information which would never otherwise be compiled, and I attribute that to it being posted on a Wiki. So I was wondering if people have a recommendation for another Wiki that could be a useful host for such a list, so I can continue to work on adding to it? Ben Raue (Talk) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this elsewhere. It's perfectly suited to Wikipedia. Ambi 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't take it elsewhere unless it gets deleted. I was just trying to find a way that I can still work on it in Wiki form if Wikipedia won't have it. But yes, I'd much rather do it within the Wikipedia project. Ben Raue (Talk) 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's always a subpage in your user space, which people can still freely edit... i.e., something like User:Braue/NUSA Officers. I don't see any harm in keeping this there, as long as you don't link any articles to there (from is all right), or have any free use pictures there.  --Kinu 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth is the point of deleting a page which is likely to be a helpful reference source for a number of articles on very notable people, as well as an interesting read in its own right? Ambi 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's perfectly encyclopedic, and quite interesting. It's highly verifiable, as most of these people have received press coverage within their terms and since, and in terms of the national officebearers, quite a lot of press coverage. Quite a few of these people have gone on to notable success (particularly as MPs). Ambi 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion. The article asserts its importance and its content is verifiable. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-12 10:17
 * Keep. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to permit long lists of such data today. The information in this page is effectively a part of National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Were the article not to be kept the correct solution would be to merge the content into that article. However, if it were merged someone would just unmerge it right away due to the length. The long term maintance issues of such lists may someday result in their removal, but that isn't our practice today... and one by one AFD discussions isn't the right way to change the project's practices. --Gmaxwell 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Gmaxwell. I'm still concerned about the size of the article, but it's very young, let's give it a chance to grow (in quality, not size) a little while yet. Turnstep 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, elected leaders of an important national body, and a large proportion are notable of themselves. I would normally vote merge, but considering the length, this should stay separate. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Certainly needs some work, though. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have thought about it a bit and read through other peoples opinions and have come to the conclusion that it can't hurt to keep it. --Martyman- (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2006 (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.