Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Nottingham Students' Union


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Students' Union

 * — (View AfD)

nn student group — Swpb talk contribs 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb talk contribs 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete although it's not entirely non-notable, it is generic. This is a directory entry.  We can have an article when we have some evidence that it's considered significant by anyone independent. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC) --Docg 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep nominator doesn't understand UK universities. This is not a 'student group' but the statutory organisation that includes every student in this very large university. UK university student unions an their politics are inherently notable.--Docg 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as Doc says, student unions are important institutions within the universities; under the Education Act 1994 they are responsible for the representation of the interests of all students within the University, without prejudice to their affiliation (so in the case of the University of Nottingham we're talking about a statutory organisation providing representation to in excess of 30,000 people). I agree that the article at present is poor and includes a lot of vanity material, and the List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union is excessive, but the student union is a very important part of UK student life. Robotforaday 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps this is notable within the school, but if Doc Glasgow there can demonstrate why it's notable beyond the walls of the school and/or what otherwise comprises the "softer" parts of the school (i.e., off-campus housing and such), then the article probably has a fighting chance.  --Dennisthe2 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union.Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please also see WP:NOTABILITY for notability standards. This will give a guide as to what constitutes "notable" around here. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in by my judgment, informative, and verifiable. And on further reading of the article, seems well done. I can't conceive of a reason to remove information of this caliber. --Falcorian (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait for sources, otherwise Delete. The criteria for notability are not about how well the article is written, or about how large or useful the subject is, but whether it's gotten enough independent coverage that information about it can be verified. This organization is local and so WP:ORG Criterion 2 applies, and multiple independent reliable sources are required. The article in its current state simply doesn't demonstrate that. Folks who are interested in having the article kept would be wise to spend their time trying to dig up sources where the Union is mentioned, or preferably featured, in independent media articles and the like that meet the WP:RS policy. If they can't be produced, Delete. --Shirahadasha 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shirahadasha. Notability MUST be established by references to non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mere existence is not good enough for inclusion, this organisation must have done something newsworthy in order to merit an article.  Zun aid  © Review me!  10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Jcuk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because my brain just can't comprehend how a "organisation that includes every student" is somehow fundamentally different from a "student group". At best this would be a merge with the school's article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)--Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge & Delete; merge with the article regarding the school. Case-in-point, there are no articles for each and every student government body for each and every college in either the US or the UK (and there shouldn't be!). --Mhking 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not?--Docg 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb talkcontribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far).Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Doc Glasgow. A statutory organisation recognised by the Government, a member body of the National Union of Students and recognised by the university who's students it represents. NUS and the University of Nottingham should represent reliable sources. Like almost every other students union it's mentioned in the various university guides describing facilities and giving reviews. Also referenced by British University Sports Association with regards to sports results. All this most surely represent multiple reliable sources. -- Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |   Talk  |   Contribs  16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can demonstrate these points (read: provide linkage), you'll change my mind, for one. As such, please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random.if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus.Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. --SunStar Nettalk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Various British Wikipedians are testifying that University Student Unions in the UK are inherently notable. Will those who are obviously ignorant of UK Educational arrangements please at least consider that we might know what we are talking about. Anyone who insists in talking about a UK University as just a 'school' obviously knows nothing about the subject matter and probably should no more comment than I would on articles on astrophysics.--Docg 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I use school in the American sense of the word, which includes all institutions of learning. Semantics aside - this group is not notable outside the University. — Swpb talk contribs 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep changing vote per Doc glasgow's argument. --SunStar Nettalk 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The Student Union at the University I attended in the U.S. was composed exactly how Doc describes Student Unions in the UK - every student was automatically a member, it exerted significant policy influence over the institution, the whole shebang. I am still not impressed that such organizations are exempt from the requirements of multiple non-trivial (note the documentation Heligoland and Geni describe is certainly reliable, but is trivial) sources documenting notability. Lyrl  Talk C 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based.Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable.  I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Guy. I'm not averse to keeping if coverage in non-trivial sources are established.  - Aagtbdfoua 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep student's unions are inherently notable.Geni 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - For those who are insisting that, as per Geni's note immediately above, "student's unions are inherently notable", please refer to this link, which explains what is considered notable here on Wikipedia.  If I am reading this correctly, a student union is actually not inherently notable - it is simply a student union.  If a student union is notable at all, notability needs to be demonstrated here as per the standards - and in this case we're not seeing notability being demonstrated.  Please also note that, per my replacement of the removed afdanons template, this is not a tally vote, this is a concensus, and this requires a good argument.  My !vote as such remains "delete". --Dennisthe2 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. --Docg 04:16, 6 January 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.