Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUECU

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 anyone needs content from this article for a merge, let me know. W.marsh 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BUECU

BUECU (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - clearly nn, vanity. This is an article for a minor group that used to be a society at BUGS but got chucked out for severe breach of the constitution. This event itself is noteworthy, but is discussed in depth on the BUGS page, so the group doesn't justify its own page. LeeWhittaker 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Article makes assertion of non-notabiliuty by cliaming it is 1 of hundereds of such organizations. Chris Kreider 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into the main BUGS article. I've had to fight off two waves of vandals over this article originating from the IP's correlating to that university, so this article will be a smoking wreck if not deleted anyway. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe keep - Valid point about the fact that vandalism - however, if they're IP's correlating to the uni, I suspect they were the same vandal (the vandalised discussion page seemed to imply the same thing) and that said person will grow up and get bored of trolling fairly soon. My only hesitation is that there's a feeling at BUECU (I'm associated with them - my job involves supporting evangelical theology students at Brum uni, and to a lesser extent BUECU as part of that), including among the exec, that legal action may be necessary in order to return to the guild (and possibly retain the funds - the guild have promised to return it on certain criteria, basically fulfilled, but they stalled and I don't know if they have yet). Legal advice has indicated that BUECU is 99% likely to win and thus the guild will - a number of high-ranking Christian lawyers are eager for BUECU to do this, in fact, in order to set a precedent throughout the country, which would be a particularly notable event, and not easily able to be fitted into the existing BUGS article, unless it was significant. This may easily happen in the next few months, and would possibly be rather notable. I don't know if it's easily possible to resurrect old articles, but that might be something worth bearing in mind in the deletion process. But as it stands, I think the fact that the event is discussed on the BUGS page is a good point.TheologyJohn 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with UCCF - Seems very vandal prone, by someone who obviously isn't a fan of the group but that in itself is not reason to delete. I think BUECU would be able to get the funds, which they should be getting, but they won't be able to get back in as they made virtually no effort to comply with the BUGS constitution, whether for the right or wrong reasons being a long debate. The BUGS constitution making it clear that all processes must be democratic and that societies can't discriminate, and all other societies have got back in line. I don't feel two sentences about a group of which there are hundreds similar nationwide merits a whole article, hence I've suggested deletion or incorporation into UCCF. The only part relevant to BUGS is already there, under controversy, I don't think a disaffiliated group needs mentioning over the 160+ current societies James Bowes 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• No change from my previous ambiguous feeling - James, I'm aware that the guild are acting entirely in accordance with their constitution (which does allow them to make exceptions, e.g. Niteline, I understand), the legal question is about more than whether that's the case - the guild constitution goes against government guidelines etc, and the lawyers verdict is that we're 99% likely to win an order to the guild to force us back in (presumably by ammending the constitution). I disagree with some of your comments about the rights and wrongs about BUECU's relationship with the guild, but I think that's a whole other debate, and if it's worth having is better carried out in person rather than in this particular context! (The fence between our gardens alright for you!;) ) I have no idea whether or not the funds have yet been returned, but I know the guild stalled for a long time. So basically no strong feelings about whether or not the article should exist, but wanting to raise the particular point and counteract your counter-point. :)TheologyJohn 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disturbing comment - nominator has no other history aside from nominating this article. Registered yesterday?It's very difficult to assume good faith when the first act of an editor is to nominate something for deletion. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disturbing comment justified - the IP of the poster is very close to that of the previous vandal of the site. That said, while it's helpful that the motives of the proposor of the deletion are thus highly dubious, I do think it's a legitimate question as to whether BUECU has sufficient significance by wikipedia criteria to have it's own article. (Not that I have any particular answer.) Although it is questionable as to whether it's likely to encourage vandalism and trolling by actually bowing to their requests. TheologyJohn 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the BUGS article Normal practice is to merge student groups to the relevant university or school, unless there is overwhelming evidence of notability. We have two independent published sources about the controversy, but none about the group. So notability isn't overwhelmingly established. If BUGS is the right place to take it for a UK group, fine by me. And it is already there, checking the Wikilink from the article. I remember a similar incident at Tufts University in the States a few years back that got plenty of media coverage, but don't think that group would notable either. GRBerry 03:33, 6 November 2006 (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.