Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet (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, although it could probably be argued that this is closer to keep per the sources given during the debate. -  Daniel.Bryant  10:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Student LifeNet (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion in December 2005, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." However, even as it stands 15 months later, the article does not really assert or show notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - probably notable due to being a large organisation, but external independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability - currently all external links are to their own sites. Walton monarchist89 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If only because articles regarding U.K. pro-life groups are underepresented in comparison to articles on U.S. pro-life groups (see Category:Pro-life organizations in the United States), and we want to avoid systematic bias. Needs improvement and clean-up. -Severa (!!!) 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the condition that the article cites coverage by major British news sources, as a significant antagonist of the choice movement. NetOracle 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some reliable sources are added to the article. At the moment this sounds like another non notable student organisation that happens to exist at a few university (11 according to the website, fewer than Flying Spaghetti Monster societies). Re 'avoid systematic bias', US pro life groups are far greater in their number, their vocal campaigning and their impact than UK ones, and from that are more notable. Nuttah68 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, massive long listing on this page of sources. Mathmo Talk 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment sourcing must be in the article, not external links. Anyway, how many of those are reliable sources about this group? Nuttah68 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These places are reliable sources in bucket loads:

Plus I'm sure there are many others, am not bothering now when it is so late at night to go through the rest of them. Anyway, the point is clear. They have been frequently interviewed for opinions to do with abortion related matters by UK papers. Mathmo Talk 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Daily Mail
 * 2) BBC
 * 3) Cambridge News
 * 4) Telegraph
 * 5) icliverpool
 * 6) Daily Mail
 * Comment, Yes the point is clear, giving interviews is not a notability criteria. They need to be the prime subject of the articles in reliable sources to establish notability WP:V, not a one line quote. Nuttah68 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what is said. Trival mentions however can be ignored, for instance their entry in a phone book is merely a trival mention. Mathmo Talk 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:CORP 'A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works.' Giving a comment does not qualify and as the article stands the is still no evidence of notability and itfalls down on WP:V. Nuttah68 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are emphasising the wrong parts. Because it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. The are non-trival and they are a subject of those articles. Thus it passes, with flying colours. Mathmo Talk 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This group was not the subject of those articles. The articles are about, the subject, abortion. For this organisation to be the subject the stories have to be about Student LifeNet. Nuttah68 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nuttah68. YechielMan 23:07, 12 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.