Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Students' Union (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 keep. Consensus is that the union is notable, if nothing else within context of its parent article. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. There is not sufficient consensus within this debate to warrant closure as merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Loughborough Students' Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge Student unions are common, and this one is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. Talk Islander 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Have a look at Category:English students' unions, these unions are notable in British Universities.  And to blatantly copy Spanmandoo's rationale from the prior AfD, this particular Union is notable because:
 * It is the only students union to represent three organisations, the university, local colledge, and Royal National Institute for the Blind.
 * it has the largest charitable fundraising total of any union in the country.
 * its radio station is responsible for helping launch and entire genre of music back in the 80's.
 * They have won the british university sporting association cup for 29 years running,leaving all other unions in thier wake.
 * They are the most ethical and environmentally freindly organisation of its type, having won many national awards in this feild. including the green gown award, the best bar none award and the sound impact award.
 * They Have achieved the higest score in student satisfaction in the national student survey last year proving the outstanding level of support for its community.
 * having the oldest student cinema in the country with several hundred capacity (an acheivemnt in the UK).
 * being one of the biggest performance venues in leicstershire.
 * It is also the only[citation needed] student union in the UK that owns it's own student union building rather than leasing space from the university. --Stephen 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those sources appear on the page. The radio station has its own article. I don't know about intramural sports, and the rest could be merged back to the University article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Have a look at Category:English students' unions, these unions are notable in British Universities" - highly debatable. In my opinion, they certainly aren't notable, with some exceptions. Each union must stand on it's own, and must be able to prove notability. Talk Islander 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep major functional division of universities.DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Long established Union, perhaps notable for being the only tertiary Union in UK. Plus its Athletic Union are first rate. BpE ps - t @  lk  03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LuffDucKeep. I usually vote to delete SOCs, but at a major university the union itself is always notable enough for inclusion. AndyJones (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I'd also support a merge to the University article. There's an awful lot of unsourced guff in this one. AndyJones (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I belive it was split off form the main article as it was too large, but we live in a cyclical world --Stephen 08:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Although I've gotta say, if you merged the adequately sourced content you'd just have to find room for one short sentence: "Six others were also injured during what was described as a scuffle that broke out after CS gas was sprayed following the event.[2]" This AfD is better-sourced! AndyJones (talk)
 * Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and while this one appears to have some hint of notability, it's still not independent. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to keep noms, every universities have a SU, therefore I can't see why this article is really notable. Plus this appalling quality of this article is simply calling for a deletion. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad Prose is not a reason for deletion WP:ATD and I find phrases like "...appalling quality of this article is simply calling for a deletion." to be objectionable and completely against Wikipedia policy. If you are trying to inflame other editors that is a great way of going about it. -- BpE ps -  t @  lk  06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that nominated article, not the users hwich is begging for a deletion - it would require too much effort to rewrite the article to make it worthy of this site. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would tend to think any SU that was able to book the Rolling Stones puts it into a Unique group, and thus notable. The argument that a University serves a purly local group is false and compleatly ignores the notable topic of Student exchange programs in most (if not all) Universities. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * commentThat comment only applies to universities, not SU which is what this nomination is about. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * your impling that Exchange students are not allowed to join the student union, which we all know is not true. People travel a long way to attend perticular Uni's, and then travel a long way after finishing studies. The Influence of the groups they joined there is not "local" for that reason. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Knock off, signing Rolling Stone when they were just a new band, is that a massive achievment, this is like saying I signed Arctic Monkeys to perform at my uni in 2006 and this is this biggest achievment the SU could do, why would signing a band when they new a big deal, I'm sure every new bands will all want to perform for food, why, because I used to be in one myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Pegg (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment, I personally agree, something trivial dressed up as serious notability because of how famous they are now, plus people are paying their weekly salaries to go and see them. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would depend on how famed the Arctic Monkeys became and their influence upon culture, dont you think? It is gigs such as this that made them as famed as they are, thus a factor in both their notability. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:N failure rationale seems poorly considered and seems to have being used for a host of similar AfD's word for word. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What a load of rubbish, I was going to nominate this all in one, but this is what I was recommended to do, hence why they are nominated separately. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(untab)OK, here's my opinion (for the record, I'm a second year student at a UK university, and am fairly involved in our Union, so I'm most definitely not talking from a US point of view ;) ). Though the sporting clubs are a part of the union, when they play other clubs, they play for the University of XYZ, not the University of XYZ's Student Union. They team names are that of the University, not union, and if they win, then the University of XYZ has won, not the UXSU. This, I am farily sure, is standard across the UK, at least in most unis. Not in Loughborough, by the sounds of things. With this logic in mind, the 'local-ness' of a sports club does not increase/decrease that of the union. Talk Islander 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached.  WP:NOT.  Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment.  The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG.  - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs  11:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sincere but pretty blatantly ill-judged nomination that suggests the nominator's other nominations should be removed as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? These articles have no sources for notability that anybody can find. This is certainly not a snowball case; far from it. It looks more like a case of canvassing and forum shopping on both sides. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Student unions are not mere petty student societies, but an umbrella organisation for all formal student social activities. WP is stuffed full of student American football teams, their coaches etc., all of which are much less notable.  This comment apllies also to any similar nominations below.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment just becase other stuff exists doesn't mean it or this should TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. UK university unions are important places. This is just the sort of article that many readers will look for and be disappointed if they do not find it. It needs some work, but that is not a reason to delete. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand my comments, British Student Unions are bound to be notable just by the size of their membership, the range of the clubs and societies they sponsor and the total size of their budget. They just need more references to be found. --Bduke (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commentand WP:USEFUL and WP:LOSE aren't valid grounds for keep.
 * Both of these come from an essay that states at the top "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it". We are writing for readers you know. It is time notability was more related to what readers expect to find. Also we should not rush to delete stuff that is inadequate, but improve it. --Bduke (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that, but the core issue is that all of these fail WP:ORG. Your grounds for keep aren't based in any policy. These are locally notable orgs, none with encyclopedic notability that's the issue here. There have to be guidelines because there doesn't need to be an article for everything. There are some things that don't belong in an enyclopedia and in my opinion, this is one of them TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, point out to me where the 'Local' clause is hiding in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Same place it has been every time we have this discussion :) I realise it's a guideline and one you're not particularly fond of but at the top of that page it also says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.  I don't particularly care about these student union AfDs and am not as vested as some who are passionate on either side, but I think the clause needs to be acknowledged even though a couple have just closed as no consensus and I doubt this will have one either. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 11:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this Student Union is local in scope. Students at universities in the UK come from all over the UK. They are not local institutions. Loughborough has a particular country wide feature, that does affect the Student Union. It is really hot on sport, so the best sports people in at least some sports go to Loughborough from all over the country and, guess what, their sport is supported by the Student Union. --Bduke (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Student unions are local in scope because it covers a localized amount of students while attending the university. The students' origins and where they go after they graduate do not factor into the SU at all because the main scope is the serve its current students.  Sports has nothing to do with the scope.  Don't try to tie in a student union with the university's athletics program.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Student union interact with each other, so they have a national importance. People from other universities will want to read this article. You are misunderstanding a UK organisation which is not like your US organisations. Student Unions in most cases are responsible for all student sport. They are sub societies of the union, like all student socities. From the article it seems that this is the case here. Not surprising. It is normal. A UK student union no more has local scope than the university itself has. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, student unions in the US also put together university sporting events. However, the sports players represent the university, therefore should be described in the "Athletics" section with mention of student union's involvement.  That's all there is to it.  If the players are not wearing Loughborough Students' Union uniforms (which they're clearly not), then athletics has nothing to do with this organization being notable.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about and the US experience is not relevant. Players at Loughborough will be wearing the colours of their Club, Rugby, Cricket etc and that Club is part of the Student Union, just like the Debating Society and hundreds of other clubs. All these clubs add to the notability of the Union. If articles on the Clubs were started they would probably be merged into the Union article, not the University article. The University has nothing to do with student sport. It is the responsibility of the Union. --Bduke (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable per ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep but tag as unreferenced. The key question about notability is non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, and it's pretty unlikely that a student union at a major university fails this criterion. It does need some work: it reads a bit like an on-campus guide more than anything else, but I think it can be salvaged. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)