Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University College Dublin Students' Union (2nd nomination)

University College Dublin Students' Union

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/University College Dublin Students' Union
• Articles for deletion/University College Dublin Students' Union (2nd nomination)

University College Dublin Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. 🍺 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. 🍺 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 :-) 🍺 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? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

References

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 Antiqueight. 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 Smirkybec, 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 Ant ie, 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, [1] 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' Blorg, 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)