Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deakin Law Students Society

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. moink 07:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deakin Law Students Society

Note 1: Image:Deakin Law Students Society Logo.gif must be deleted if this article is deleted or it will become an orphan.

• Comment: As I understand it, images must be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. This is particularly important right now as there's a bug in the current MediaWiki code that makes it a bit tricky to tell whether an image really is unused. Also, everyone please sign your posts. No vote as yet. Andrewa 15:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was listing the image here in the context of the article. Since I believe the article should be deleted, therefore the image can be done at the same time. It wouldn't make sense to have a separate vote for the image and then find out the core article wasn't deleted. Or would it? Well you might be right, I've never really run into such an issue before... I will have to read up on these rules... hmm... Master Thief Garrett 22:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...this qualifies as an ad, right? And even if not, not enough Google hits. Master Thief Garrett 10:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a non-profit organisation - how can it be an ad? Further Google Search for "Deakin Law Students Society" returns 50 000+ results.
  • Easily. Similarly, many non-profit websites are desperate for page hits. Arguably the term 'vanity' is more appropriate, though. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the founding of Wikipedia, more and more websites have been cloning our content. Upon investigation, many of the results are pages like that, or blogs, or "stuff in Deakin area" pages, or such, rather than wider-area pages. Therefore the number of Google hits does not necessarily notability. Master Thief Garrett 09:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, number of Google hits doensn't necessarily establish nobility one way or another- but "not enough Google hits" was one of your reasons for nominating in the first instance.--Damon 06:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • oh... yeah... I was meaning not enough that are valid, but I neglected to specify that fact. Master Thief Garrett
• Delete, nn. Existence does not equal notability. Non-profit does not mean not an ad. RickK 22:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and continue to expand. --Damon 00:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, promo. Megan1967 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important student groups at major universities should have a place in Wikipedia. --Centauri 06:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Precedent is that student group information is merged into the college/university article. See Dartmouth College. RickK 19:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student groups local to a single university. At the very most, redirect it back to Deakin University, from which it sprang forth, and which still has practically all of this spinoff's content. —Korath (Talk) 20:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless fork. Redirect if people really want to. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 04:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The Deakin University article should be about Deakin University. The three sentences about DLSS already in the article are more than adequate for that purpose. Any expanded coverage for student associations should be in separate articles.
  • For a precedent, see Rutgers University where every organization links to a different Wikipedia article or to an off-site article (just as html was designed to work). DialUp 05:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A couple of general comments:
    • Anyone wishing to create categories to assist those studying particular subjects (i.e. Australian Law Students Associations) has a difficult task when the subject articles are lost inside larger articles.
    • When possible, articles should be tightly focused on the subject. The tendency to merge disparate subjects into loosely organized articles reminds me of hobo stew—one may throw everything into one pot, but it can be very hard to swallow and harder to digest. -DialUp 14:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Or it can be a rich tapestry of context against which the detail can be more easily or more completely understood. (The argument about categories does not win me over. Articles are for the benefit of readers. Categories are for the benefit of articles. Not the other way around.) Merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I guess we disagree on this. To me, the Deakin University article would not be enhanced by including specific information concerning an independent student society; such as society membership qualifications and society sponsored competitions and social events (I noticed that the DLSS article ignores pub crawls and booze cruises). And the DLSS subject would be degraded from linking with other articles (internal anchors don't work real well in Wikipedia, especially in longer articles), as well as eliminated from categorization. Nor, for the same reasons, do I think the Deakin University Law School should be merged with Deakin University. To me categories are not article enhancements—they are just another kind of navigational aide for the user. At least we agree the article is an encyclopedic topic. DialUp 14:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Grue 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.