Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (3rd 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:59Z 

List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Directory list with no apparent encyclopedic need. An enormous list of non-notable people. Vegaswikian 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Last two debates ended in no consensus. MER-C 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. MER-C 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much just what the nominator said: an enormous list of non-notable people. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Student politicians often become notable real-world politicians, as some of the people on this list have already become. --Eastmain 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If someone from this list becomes notable enough for an article, then write an article. Otto4711 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nominator, a list of all people will consist of some that will become notable later, but we don't have that. We don't need this list either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- &mdash;Moondyne 08:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Super strong keep - why do we keep digging up AfDs that have failed until they pass? It's not good enough - there's no more reason why it should be deleted now than it did in the past two nominations - I call on the nominator to explain why this is any different to beforehand. There MUST be a distinction made between the individuals on this page, which are not inherently notable, and the roles that the people have held, which have aided hundreds of thousands of students and have led some notable campaigns for students' and other rights over the past few years - this is a notable organisation and its leaders are notable. Some of these people already have their own article and if history is anything to go by, some of these people will end up in high political and other positions in Australia - while that is not certain, the roles the people play make it notable enough to keep on its own merits; this article only exists because it is a subset of the National Union of Students page, and would be too big to fit there. Let's stop this nonsense in continually bringing up articles to be deleted simply because someone doesn't like it and didn't like the previous outcome. JROBBO 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And conversely, the vast number will never be notable. Also the previous AfDs resulted in no consensus.  So basically there was no decision made that this article should be kept.  The article could be more acceptable from a notability basis if it only covered the national offices, so maybe deleting all of the state sections could help move to a consensus. Vegaswikian 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom DXRAW 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Organisation and each of its past leaders is notable, given that they appear in various mainstream, not to mention campus, media every few months. One could argue that OBs besides the President and Gen Sec are non-notable. Suggest moving nn information to the article's talk page so it's at least recorded somewhere? Joestella 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment JROBBO's claim that NUS has "aided hundreds of thousands of students" is dubious and needs citation. :) Joestella 14:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True - it's probably a bit of an exaggeration - but even for the hundreds of thousands of university students who never used the services of NUS up till the end of Compulsory Student Unionism, they were *there* to represent their interest in any case. I'm all for Joe's proposal above though - it's a good compromise. JROBBO 11:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Mathmo Talk 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unbelievably huge pile of listcruft. WP:NOT. Krimpet 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very handy reference piece for writing articles on Australian politicians. Each one of these people has plenty of appearances in reputable media (really, it comes with the job), and several of them have articles. I for one find it very helpful to be able to go through and find out which notable people once served in various positions, and I see absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. Rebecca 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely worthless list of non-notable people. Soltak | Talk 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rebecca. Orderinchaos78 18:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, most student politicans just aren't notable. --Peta 02:51, 7 February 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.