Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull University Union (2nd nomination)

Hull University Union

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. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hull University TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Union is separate from the university and is a notable entity to which all of the students belong. It needs referencing and some clean-up but should remain. Keith D (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, but the article doesn't states why it is notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This union is no more notable than any other - it certainly fails to assert any notability through use of reliable third-party links - all references are links to the SUs own site. Some unions, like that of say Oxbridge or similar, may be notable. The vast majority, this one included, are carbon copies of one-another, and are not notable enough for their own entry. _Talk Islander 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
- Oh gee, now I'm an SPA because I noticed a proliferation of student union articles. I also speedy delete tagged a lot of articles, which you can't see because they're mostly gone now. At least I'm not arguing that student unions are "inheritently notable". Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using an account mainly for one thing - in your case prodding and deleting, can often be construed that way. Please be civil; attacking others simply because they have a different view of notability isn't very civil. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keith D. Student unions are inheritently notable. GreenJoe 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This GreenJoe guy is the one who undid the propose deletion tags on all the student union articles I found, and marked my opinion as coming from an SPA. He seems to have overlooked my efforts to clear out non-notable concert tours, make redirects and do a few other things that interest me. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why? Where does it say that SUs are inheritently notable? I don't believe that.. _Talk Islander 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I do. These are organisations with thousands of members every year for decades. That's where notability comes from. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, As I have said on my other comment, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. Personally I agree with Paddy's comment that every universities have a student union, try name one that haven't, therefore I won't be buying into GreenJoe's comment that every one are inheritently notable. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. The union like any such union gets covered in the local papers from time to time although distance from london and general lack of causeing trouble will likely keep it out of nationals for the most part.Geni 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the local newspaper removes its on line articles after 6 months so looking on-line is not particularly useful and you need to look at the originals at the local studies library. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? just because something only exists on microfilm doesn't mean that it isn't a valid source.Geni 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the issue is that it's local coverage only. Student unions are of interest to the local populations that they serve, which is why they fail WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generaly unions stick to serveing students. The wider community does tend to take an interest from time to time (traditionaly rag week but there are other reasons). Local newspapers are not normaly run by the student union.Geni 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry I think you took my comment the wrong way round. I was just attempting to point out that on-line sources may not be available to show third party coverage of the subject. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasoning for failing WP:N poorly conceived. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, as this is what I have been recommended to do. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - the info here is better served by including it with the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]