Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union of UEA Students


 * 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..  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Union of UEA Students

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable students' union, which asserts no notability through means of external links to reliable, independant sources. In my opinion, the article fails WP:N. The Islander 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:ORG. It's possible some student unions are notable, but so far the articles I've seen on them have been just as pitiful as this one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, there is the issue of verifiability. Second, there is a lot of...excess baggage in this article. The details of the executive structure can be better handled by the Union's website. The list of artists who played at the union has undue weight in the article. Finally, there's nothing left here that goes beyond what's already covered at University of East Anglia, so I don't see a need to salvage text or merge it back into the parent article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep As with the other student unions discussed, they are an appropriate way of grouping the mini-articles of student organisations at the universities. Notable as first-division parts of a major university. DGG (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been a AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. The Islander 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The nomination is not for all student union articles. It's for the article on UEA's union. That's the issue of this AfD, not any other articles on Wikipedia. Since this union's article is unsourced and does not present a clear claim for notability, that's why I recommend deleting. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 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.