Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University College Dublin 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

University College Dublin Students' Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This went to AfD in November, but only attracted 2 responses, so was closed as no consensus, with no prejudice against a swift renomination. This has been tagged for notability for eight years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or another. I don't see how this meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines at all. At best, worth a merge/redirect to University College Dublin, but I'm unsure if it's even worth that. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge list of notable officers perhaps, otherwise delete. No notablity established, no improvement for eight years as the nomination mentions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete no stand alone notability. Fails WP:ORG. Oppose merge as most of the article content is routine student union. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * keep There is no difference here to all the other student union pages which exist - it's late at night for me so I'll dig out the reasoning later but if those pages are valid I can come back and tidy this page to match validity with those others. While the original creators have not made improvements I can try now.  &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The union has had an impact on politics and other student bodies in Ireland and there is notability.  &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - which is why I said I'd come back to it later :-)  &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * keep continued The UCD student's union meets notability defined as an "organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization" since it is regularly covered by the national news outlets both tv and newspaper. Examples like in the Independent or the Irish Times and the Journal - The Union has had national political impacts in feminism and contraception as well, for example.
 * While these have not been included on the page and the page may indeed need editing - would these references and similar be enough to consider the Union to have notability?  &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck one of the two keeps of . You can add keep to your rationale only once, further comments are to be preceded by Comment. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and mention elsewhere (so partially merge whatever necessary content) as this seems questionably notable by itself. SwisterTwister   talk  23:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst the current article is not in the best shape, UCDSU is an important union in broader student and national politics in Ireland. I can't understand why this UCDSU is deemed unimportant enough to delete when most of the other major college's SUs have pages (as can be seen in the categories at the bottom), why is seen as expendable in comparison of TCD, DIT, UL etc. Seems rather arbitrary to delete it. Smirkybec (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe it is an important union, can you verify this with reliable sources? Without that, we can't consider it notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have any horses in this race, and given that I don't have the time at the moment to do any hardcore editing, I will leave any improvements to other editors. It just seems odd to me that one of the oldest SUs in Ireland would be nominated over other poorer SU articles. There is no denying that numerous important politicians and others have made their way up the ranks starting in this union, and just because this editor doesn't have time to improve the article doesn't mean that others shouldn't be afforded the opportunity! Those are my two cents, over and out! Smirkybec (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." There is an entire template for Students' Unions in Ireland


 * and every single other university student union in the country has an article on it. So do most universities in the UK. This is a valid use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, rather than your just dropping it in as shutdown. Blorg (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As above reasons ant_ie (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, the 'above reasons' don't add up to much more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you explain why you think it meets the guidelines, WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Blorg (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There are thousands of references to UCD Students Union in the Irish newspaper of record, the Irish Times, and that is only going back to 1996. This clearly establishes notability according to WP:GNG Blorg (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a 40-year old organisation, the largest student union in the largest university in Ireland, with countless references in the national media (Irish Times, Irish Independent) going back decades, that has been instrumental in many social changes in Irish society, such as the fight for access to abortion information in the 1980s/1990s. Honestly nominating this for deletion is a joke, it is obviously notable. User nominating this obviously has an agenda, yes the article could be better but nominating for deletion in the hope that will light a fire under people to improve it is an abuse of the deletion process. Blorg (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, this has been tagged for notability for eight years' because people have looked at it but struggled to establish notability one way or the other. To accuse me of having an 'agenda' (not sure what that would be) or 'abuse' of process isn't OK. We can disagree, that's fine, but there's no need to attack each other. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment How exactly does almost 2,000 references in the Irish Times, the newspaper of record for Ireland, not establish notability? Blorg (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the notability tag from the article as it seems to have been the tag that you are taking issue with rather than the question of whether the article subject is actually notable. I've left the relies too much on primary sources tag, as yes it does, but this is a separate matter to notability. Blorg (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Once this is decided I will try to fix the article. If the references to the Union in every major media outlet in Ireland is considered insufficient to show notability there is no point in fixing it.   &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , you have misunderstood, the tag is the symbol of the issue, it is not the issue. The issue, as has been discussed here, is whether this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I dispute that as multiple people have pointed out to you that there are thousands of references to this organisation in Irish national newspapers, going back decades, but you are refusing to even address that point, preferring just to lazily throw Wikipedia policy statements at people (and not replying when it is demonstrated how you are misusing these policy statements).


 * The tag is there, and has remained there for eight years, because no-one has been arsed removing it in those eight years, not because "people have looked at it but struggled to establish notability" as you disingenuously assert. Look at that talk page, there is no discussion on notability. The tag is not there because people have been valiantly trying but failing to establish notability for eight years, it's there because the article is shit and has got little attention from anyone over the last eight years, other than people annually updating the list of officers (and that section could probably go, I agree). But that an article is shit does not mean that it's subject is non-notable, these are two separate issues and you are abusing process by bringing this to AfD and disingenuously alleging non-notability on the part of the subject.


 * This is a pure circlejerk over procedure here, the subject of the article is obviously notable, two seconds on Google would clear that up for you but you prefer to have your little Wikipedia procedural circlejerk over the whole thing rather than just plugging the name of the organisation into a Google search. This is the largest student union in Ireland, (and I've included three references to each of Ireland's three quality national newspapers stating that specifically), an organisation which has been continually covered and considered notable by the national media for decades, if this is not notable, almost no student union is notable, yet you don't seem to be off trying to delete the hoards of other articles about student unions all over Wikipedia.


 * And note, here, I don't disagree that quality of the article is poor, and I don't disagree that it relied too much on primary sources, but these are separate issues from the actual notability of the subject of the article and your listing it here is a clear abuse of process. There are other processes (like the issues boxes at the top) for articles that are sub-par, the deletion process concerns the subject of the article, not the article itself. So take it to Articles needing cleanup, or highlight it on one of the Wikiprojects concerning Ireland or Irish education or Irish politics... if you actually cared about that, and it might improve the article (which is shit, I have no issue with that, it's a really bad article).


 * Anyway, I have contributed a new "History" section and dumped a metric shit ton of secondary references to the Union into the article, including multiple references from all three quality Irish national newspapers, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent and The Irish Examiner, as well as the national broadcaster, RTE. I hope this is enough for you and you can now go off and try to passive aggressively delete some other obviously notable articles. Honestly this sort of procedural politicking, where the focus becomes the internal Wiki procedure, is why I gave up contributing to Wikipedia ten years ago. Blorg (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going into detail referring to your personal and unnecessary comments, I have given my opinion. And many people have looked over this article over the years, I'm part of the project which has been going through tagged articles, so I'm well aware that it was left till last as problematic - not because it was a bad article (we have thousands of them) but because through Google they couldn't establish its notability. Many people have questioned its notability, including the tagger and other people here - and it's OK for people to disagree on notability, or not spot sources others have now added. A lot of good points have been made here, but I don't see why it has turned into a personal attack, I'm guessing because you feel you've had poor experiences on WP in the past. Can we just comment on the article's notability, nothing else is relevant (and both you and I have probably said all we have to say on that point). Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I came back to this AfD as a user left a comment on my page because I'm an Irish person, and a graduate of University College Dublin, and thus have a bit better an idea of the subject's notability that you do... I don't have any association with UCDSU in particular other than having been a member like every other student during my tenure there (like hundreds of thousands of other people).


 * Again, you are refusing to actually address any of the points made to you, instead going for an ad hominem and throwing around Wikipedia procedural circlejerk nonsense which you then refuse to address when anyone calls you on it. "Can we just comment on the article's notability"... well people have, and you refuse to engage with them, other than just regurgitating Wikipedia policies in their face which you haven't even read.


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." You are using it in exactly this fashion, as an abuse of procedure. You are refusing to engage the valid points he made, instead just throwing Wikipedia policies at him without even reading them. Justify your application of this policy, don't just lazily throw it at him.


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." They are, I linked the articles on other Irish and other UK student unions. You do not address.


 * WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It has, I have included references over several decades from all three quality national newspapers and the national broadcaster. You do not address.


 * Notability. Please provide evidence that people have been trying to establish notability for this article over several years. All I see is your sending it to AfD once before in November and then again now. Where is this extensive discussion you allege happened? Where are the multiple people claiming to have attempted to establish notability through Google but reported failing. Citation needed.


 * Given that I and others have provided you with countless references to secondary sources, and you are refusing to actually question these sources, please put forward an argument as to how thousands of references in Irish national newspapers and by the national broadcaster do not establish notability.


 * But you aren't actually going to address any of these points, and by god you aren't going to just concede that the subject might actually be notable, because you aren't actually interested in that, you are just interested in the Wikipedia procedural circlejerk. Blorg (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, here's a point by point analysis of how if you actually read WP:ORG this organisation actually qualifies. I don't expect you are actually going to address any of these points, though, as you don't address anything other than just throwing Wikipedia policies at people without reading them:


 * Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Google searches of Irish national newspapers return thousands of results and scores of articles over decades have been provided that deal with the Union and its activities as the primary subject.


 * Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Evidence has been provided of significant coverage by national media.


 * Independence of sources A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Scores of references have been provided from articles in the national media which are completely independent of the Union itself.


 * Illegal conduct There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. The Union has engaged in several illegal acts, specifically around the provision of contraception and abortion information, with the aim of of forcing legal change in Ireland. In the latter instance the case went as far as the Supreme Court of Ireland and established several important judicial precedents concerning standing in Irish law, and ultimately as far as the European Court of Justice, which established that under the Treaty of Rome abortion was a service and a Member State could not prohibit the distribution of information about a service legally provided in another Member State. The Irish government responded to this decision by legislating to expressly permit the provision of abortion information. Blorg (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2016 (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.