Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia
An enormous list of non-notable people. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. An enormous, notable reference source for a great many Australian articles. A lot of work has gone into producing this, and it shows in the result. We've also been over this deletion debate before. Rebecca 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? How are these people notable?  User:Zoe|(talk) 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They've occupied important national or statewide offices, and during their terms have appeared quite a number of times in the media speaking about relevant issues. Quite a number of these people have gone on to other notable careers, often in politics, and this list serves as a useful source regarding their time in the NUS. Rebecca 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic.--Peta 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is not an issue, but this is a big collection of indiscriminate information. -- Koffieyahoo 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. The list is limited to a very, very small subset of people - those who have held a major office in the National Union of Students. What is it with this new fad of trying to bizarrely stretch the WP:NOT criteria to cover all sorts of situations? Rebecca 05:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh, the list is/are 43 lists if I counted correctly. I call that pretty indiscriminate -- Koffieyahoo 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And, I can understand a list of presidents being included in the main article, but a list for every type of office they have? -- Koffieyahoo 05:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The UK NUS is a significant launching pad for politicians, with people like Jack Straw and Charles Clarke starting their political careers there.  From what I can tell, the Australian NUS is similar, and the currently smaller proportion of notable people is probably due to the fact that the list goes back only to 1988.  I think the list is valuable for that reason and because these officers led an organization of 700,000 members. OneVeryBadMan 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only two have articles on wikipedia, and one is prodded. As the above user noted, the group is notable, but each individual representative is not. Honestly, it's like naming every representative of the IAFF, it's just not necessary. tmopkisn tlka 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you must vote to delete this article, at least learn to count the number of articles. Eight of these people have articles, and several more need them but haven't got them yet. If nothing else, the list highlights some notable people who need articles and is a useful reference when they are written - it is thanks to this list, for example, that I realised Louise Pratt had served in a major NUS role. Rebecca 06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should just be stated in the Louise Pratt article? -- Koffieyahoo 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'm somewhat blind I guess, I still stand by my vote though. tmopkisn tlka 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful list as per Rebecca. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is not merely a list of names, but includes their party affiliations, which is very important for people researching the political development of the organization. OneVeryBadMan 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - about two of these people are proper politicians, the other guys like Felix Eldridge are only notable for organising a rally against John Howard, etc, which isn't notable. Some of the recent SA guys have spoken to me personally (at Adelaide University trying to get me to vote for them etc,) and they command crowds of about 50-150 people who lined up for a free sausage mostly. Non notable people, about as notable as some a7 bands, random people. Plus there is about 10% turnout for student elections, despite all this cajoling during election week, and most students don't know the name of their leader and then forget after election week anyway. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a proper distinction, in terms of notability, is being made between the whole and the parts. A list of famous and notable people may be deleted because the list itself is useless. This is the opposite case, because the list as a whole is notable, even though many of the individuals are not.  Virtually every student and graduate in Australia has been represented by these officers at some point.  I think the list is a useful reference which will increase in value as these people progress in their careers.
 * I think you've put this far better than I ever could, OneVeryBadMan. Rebecca 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said - completely agree. (JROBBO 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep, per arguments made by OneVeryBadMan. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, while some may think the individuals are not notable, they would be right - some of them aren't - but this article is about the people who have held these NOTABLE roles, not the individuals. -- Chuq 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * People who have held these notable roles, not the individuals Individual people hold these notable roles, is that not correct? So how is it possible for someone (or something) to hold this role without being an individual? tmopkisn tlka 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Individuals are mentioned in the article because they have held a notable role, not because of any other outside notability. Rebecca 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote from Keep to Strong keep. -- Chuq 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per tmopkisn and Koffieyahoo Lomedae 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments made by OneVeryBadMan. --Dodge 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per arguments above. --Roisterer 12:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per indef. growing list. Just because some of the people are notable doesnt mean everything they are connected with deserves a list of everyone who once held that position. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The positions may be notable (I'm not even convinced of that), but not everyone who holds them is. Kafziel 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete Per above keep arguments. Appears to be notable enough as Australian officials. rootology (T) 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not Australian officials, they are officials in Australian student politics. We have a precedent of deleting presidents of the Oxford University student union, a much more prestigious position than any of these people holds.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which AfD was that from? I'd like to see. rootology (T) 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't remember. It was the names of the individuals, but I honestly don't know their names.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see the problem with this being included... it's minor, but notable enough on a small scale... but it's probably not notable enough for inclusion here the more I think about it. Changing to delete, but *not* salted or protected. If they can come up with a better cited version to establish notability of them and their org, they should be free to recreate. rootology (T) 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This list is much more useful and notable to me (and probably other students and staff from Australian universities) than anyone from Oxford. Keep in mind that notability is regional. -- Synapse 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. QazPlm 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Koffieyahoo. This list is excessive, and even if it may be useful, does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Acyso 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * weak Keep or merge with main group article, but trim a lot. Maybe keep the national president and general secretary list.
 * Keep as a bloody useful list, and if memory serves this was up for AfD before. Reading this and the above AfD makes it hard to Assume Good Faith. -- Synapse 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unclear why you have to drag Good Faith into this. A slight majority of the people responding here agree with the nomination, which makes the encyclopedic merit of this list tenous at least. I am well aware AfD is not a popularity content or a vote, but this level of support is saying something. No need to imply foul play. 13:21, August 3, 2006 (UTC).
 * So far as I can remember, this is the first time I have run across this list. It didn't come up as a repeat AfD when I put the afd tag on it, and I did ask above for a link to the previous one.  I have no interest or involvement in Australian politics, student or otherwise, this is merely, to me, a completely silly list of non-notable people.  Which is why I listed it.  Obvious bad faith, of course.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad faith, no, but rude and bloody-minded to push through its deletion when there are people who clearly find it useful, and have expressed above good, unaddressed reasons for it being kept. Rebecca 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be good to keep this civil, think of your blood pressure :) No doubt people find this list useful, that's not open for debate. But it would be equally useful in userspace. But does it belong in an encyclopedia? I say no. And none of the "unadressed reasons" are maybe addressed as they're not perceived as very good ones by the supporters of this AfD. If these people are really so important, how come almost none has an article in Wikipedia? 00:46, August 4, 2006 (UTC).
 * Which just shows that you haven't read the objections, since no one is claiming that everyone here is individually notable outside of having held a notable position. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is absolutely no reason why this could not go in an encyclopedia. Rebecca 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, rude? Listing an item for AfD is rude?  Then we might as well just shut down AfD altogether, we'd hate to be rude to anybody.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I appreciate the obvious work that has gone into this list but I don't think it belongs in the mainspace. If some people find it useful as a reference source for article writing, userfy it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my opinion, it is possible that someone may one day need this list for some kind of research, but this sort of information belongs in one place: the NUS website, not Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone would look on Wikipedia for this other than looking for the NUS website link here. --Canley 03:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it isn't on the NUS website. You're admitting that it's a useful article, and then voting to remove it from the internet altogether. This is not helpful. Rebecca 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't on the NUS website, and I think it should be. I will write to them and suggest this is added, but I still don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. --Canley 05:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? We have many lists, many of which are far less useful than this, and it interlinks well with the people that do (and those that should have) articles. Rebecca 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This utter blip on the radar doesn't even deserve a sentence. Feedyourfeet 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Simply listcruft.  Vegaswikian 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - as per Rebecca - this is a massive list for which a lot of work has been done. NUS is important in Australian student politics and its list of office bearers should have an article. If this is to be deleted, at the very least it should be a section of the NUS article. (JROBBO 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep: a list can be notable in itself without each and every item being notable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Boswell. Has reference value, and much greater than the sum of its non-notable parts by a very, very long way, although I would hack it down to just the President and perhaps General Secretary, as the others are, well, NN. Not a difficult list to maintain, changes but once a year. Ohconfucius 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable people on the Australian student politics scene. How is this page actually against any policies. It is not simply an indiscriminate list, it is verifiable, and people reference the page so it will not always be the virtual orphan that it is currently. Ans e ll  13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate that some people find this list useful, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of all facts that someone, somewhere, might find useful.  This list doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. Nandesuka 04:30, 11 August 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.