Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool Guild of Students

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Maxim(talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Guild of Students

Liverpool Guild of Students (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:N - fails to assert any notability whatsoever, through means of external links to independant sources etc. TheIslander 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Local student groups are generally not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notable information presented. Merge anything important to the main university article. Powers T 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Powers and WP:ORG and WP:N. The article will never be able to gain notability. —Noetic Sage 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. TheIslander 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stop the rampant deletionism!. Practically every other university SU has a page, often split from the main article to prevent it from overwhelming the main article. Francium12 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep in mind that just because there are countless other SU articles does not mean they all should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for a clarification on this.—Noetic Sage 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per failure of WP:ORG. Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Storkk (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until we have a policy otherwise. Nominating them all in the hope of geting a few deleted each time is not a constructive way of establishing a consensus. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (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.