Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet


 * 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; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Student LifeNet
This is a group of anti-abortion activists. There is no assertion in the article that it ever made any impact. Pilatus 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)s


 * Request for comment Could a British Wikipedian assess the notability of, , and ? Durova 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * None of them are reputable newssources. The first one is the fishwrapper published by Southampton University Student Union, the others are just – websites. Pilatus 15:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then Delete as non-notable. Durova 18:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising, no assertion of notability. Humansdorpie 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: They are notable having addressed parliament, and having been quoted/featured in these sites. Chooserr
 * Comment We can see the url, being referenced on their own website doesn't make them notable--Aolanonawanabe 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - If you follow that link, you'll see that it's the page where they maintain links to media coverage of the group. It's a whole slew of links to media outlets (Daily Telegraph, Liverpool Daily Post, Medical News Today, etc), not just an item on their own site. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question are any of those notable?--Aolanonawanabe 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of them are not. In 2004 they were mentioned twice in the national press, once in the Daily Mail and once in the Sun. The rest are just local papers. Pilatus 02:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This has sort of become tangential, so if there are no objections, I'll move this to the AFD talk page--Aolanonawanabe 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Whether or not the group is featured notably in the media is extremely relevant to AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, delete as non-notable--Aolanonawanabe 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. jmd 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- JJay 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Parliment has listned to all kinds of groups who aren't influential enough to have an article on WP. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a legitimate organization. -- OldRight 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep AnnH (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I edited it recently to de-POV it a bit, but I am neutral on whether it stays or goes. FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nuff said.--Dan 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely notable. At least to those who concern themselves with the pro-choice / pro-life debate, which is notable in itself. The article *does* need some extensive editing, though, to fix some material that is too far on the side of POV-pushing. →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  20:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How would they be notable? We generally do not keep student organizations, I have never come across them in any paper, and by their own admission in the last year they were mentioned twice in the national press. Pilatus 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of verifiability, those citations are not reputable news sources. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable. The standard for keeping groups on wikipedia should not be based on PoV. Dominick (TALK) 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - It isn't based on POV. It's based on WP:V, supported by WP:CITE and WP:RS. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless further evidence of notability is presented.--SarekOfVulcan 06:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Durova --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a valid article --Shanedidona 04:20, 20 December 2005 (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.