Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcester 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 delete - if you want some stuff from this article to be merged contact me on my talk page-- JForget  23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: It is redirected to the university article, so you can have the chance to add whatever content is necessary to the parent article.-- JForget 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Worcester Students Union

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

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Areason for me to nominate this was another user prodded this, but it was removed without a summary, this is the reason why, also I wish people don't come here and wrie as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Worcester doesn't look notable to me, but I suggest removing the others from the nomination, possibly nominating them seperately--maybe spread it out over a few days so as not to flood AfD. There's enough difference here that they really should be considered individually. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Starblind, above - block nomination is unhelpful here. — mholland (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: what I'll do is remove all other nomination and list them separately, other than that, I will place a notability tag on some of them. The only snag is, I'm not an administrator, so therefore I not in a positiuon to be able to remove the AFD tags. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - not true. If the reason is legitimate, as it is here, anyone can remove AfD tags. Talk Islander 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Student union's are inheritently notable. Aside from that as well Knock-Off says "this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else." A lot of student unions have quite notable and quite public squabbles. Those should be included. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. GreenJoe 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the nomination will only applies to Worcester Students Union as all others have been withdrawn, hence the strikethrough. Well this edit does not indicate why it is notable, all it does is to promote the SU as if it is a holiday brochure, which the editor forgotten that this is an encyclopedia, not for them to bang on how great their SU is. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that withdrawn is not correct as they now appear to have been entered as separate nominations. A case of going through a category and nominating all articles in it. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Only one out of the 10 striked nominations above has been re-nomed - the rest have most definitely been withdrawn for now. Talk Islander 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not really notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs  17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Now that the nomination has been pared down, the choice is clear. Non-notable, no reliable sources, and none likely to show up anytime soon: "Worcester Students Union" gets 2 Google News archive hits, both trivial mentions only tangentally related to the club itself. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete easily. This article does not assert notability in any way, merely linking to it's own website. I completely disagree that all SUs are inheritently notable - here's a good example of one that is not. Talk Islander 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the main studentunion in a university is a major part of the university, and is notable.DGG (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails to assert notability, and is probably not notable part of a former college of FE; can me merged with University of Worcester article without any serious loss. The student officers are but a laundry list of positions. The facilities are generic and the history is pretty pathetic Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed the article is poorly written, but that doesn't mean the subject is not notable. See WP:POTENTIAL. Also, Comment. Of the other articles listed above (and I'm quite aware that they have been withdrawn from this AfD discussion), five were nominated for deletion in December 2007. Four reached no consensus and one had the result of a definite keep! It strikes of bad faith and as an attempt to keep nominating some articles until they're deleted. I can't see any evidence that this was the case here, but I'm sure you can see my concern. Andy (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I want to say, removing nominations on the rest is is no way a bad faith nomination as I have been advised to nominate them separately, which is what I am doing right now. As for today (the date I am posting this), I will be nominating another 2 as suggested later in the day, then the same amount later in the week. Also not to mention that, I never knew of the previous nominations, my pure reason for nominating is because of the article's lack of explained notability and don't forget every colleges and universities have a Student Union, why, because I used to be a university student myself and these articles just do nothing but to use this website to spam their services as if it is a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as with other organisations, student unions need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 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.