Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTS Students' Association


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

UTS Students&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG, contains no references. contains no third party evidence of notability Michellecrisp (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks the necessary sources to meet WP:ORG. The union is already mentioned in the main university article, a section that can be expanded if necessary. TerriersFan (talk)
 * Delete, per nom. Does not pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, and trying to haphazardly merge it into the university article would make that article worse. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see any suggestion that the merge should be haphazard. Stating "Notable subject" is not a valid argument; notability is defined in WP:N and you need to add sources to meet this guideline. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rebecca. There should be sources on the group going back to the VSU debate days, but I bet no one checked that. Student unions should be inherently notable, unlike student clubs. JRG (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that students unions are supposed to be "inherently notable"? There is nothing of the sort in WP:ORG or in any of the pending (or even rejected) notability proposals and I don't think this opinion reflects either past practice or past consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite; student unions are not inherently notable and JRG should pursue a guideline if he wishes to establish this. "There should be sources on the group" is not a valid argument; I can find sources but they are tangential on aspects of their activities; none of the sources cover the union substantively and in detail. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above 2 comments, I've actually participated in previous deletion debates where student unions have been merged or deleted. Every organisation must meet WP:ORG to be considered "inherently notable". A Google news search reveals some stories but more a representative of the association talking to the media. Very little that actually establishes notability of this association. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A google news search would only show very recent articles. At the very least you and the other anti-keeping editors should do some more thorough research before making conclusions that the page is not notable. Around the world student organisations have usually been kept. JRG (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you can do a google news search on all dates and it includes material that is available on pay per article news services. I still stand by my assertion of it not being notable through lack of third party evidence which I haven't been able to find. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Student organisations are generally the largest grouping at a university and are normally politically active. There will be oodles of source material should someone care to visit a library rather than rely on what google spits out. Certainly, the average student union would be considerably more notable than the average high school, lets say. Lastly, guidelines shouldn't be created de novo. Instead guidelines should be developed as the distillation of what is common practice. In this case, JRG, by suggesting that student unions are inherently notable, is attempting to get the ball rolling (Note that I disagree with his premise, nothing is inherently notable and all article topics should satisfy the primary criterion of WP:N) If, in enough cases the notability or otherwise of student unions is established, then a guideline can be created that summarises the arguments for that position. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Major student union at major tertiary institution. Inherently meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence from reliable sources independent of UTS or the student association indicating that the organization meets WP:ORG. AfD is not cleanup, but it is a place to discuss whether or not deletion is appropriate. Unless the appropriate reliable sources can be found demonstrating notability, deletion seems most appropriate (as most student organizations of colleges and universities do not meet WP:ORG. B.Wind (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (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.