Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UQ Union

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 of the debate was no consensus. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UQ Union

delete page as WP not a collection of university union members. Brief reference to student union's existence can easily be covered in universtiy article page.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for unencyclopaedic content. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Keep much better now. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. *drew 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs to be improved but the topic matter is distict enough to require a seperate article. Whether or not a particular article is unencyclopaedic is often subjective. Robertbrockway 08:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. *sigh* The UQ Union has probably wasted part of my $132 yet again, this time by paying someone to put this (and other) non-encyclopædic garbage in Wikipedia. They have their own damned webpage, so they can keep it all there. -LichYoshi 11:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wholly unencyclopedic, nn. Dottore So 12:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to University_of_Queensland#UQ_Union. There is more relevant detail in the section of the University of Queensland article than in this article. The executive is transient information. Capitalistroadster 22:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, these details aren't useful for an encyclopedia.--nixie 23:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalistroadster, for now; this should not preclude the creation of an encyclopaedic article on the union itself later on should anyone actually get off their arses and write one. ～J.K. 23:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Ambi just did. ～J.K. 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Entirely encyclopedic topic. Ambi 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I've just rewritten the article entirely from scratch. The previous content was so execrable it could probably have been speedied, but I hope that this will suffice now. Ambi 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly urge to keep. This post is entirely related, especially since its renovation. As a first time user, I prematurely published this article by accident, mistakenly thinking I was within the safe confines of sandbox. Wikimedia surpasses academic edited collections because it can bring the ‘niche’ as well as the ‘general’, this is just as relevant as comments about pages about state politicians in QLD, or young Labor factions. I am not associated with the Union and certainly not paid. I have no reason to believe that anything suggests that this is affiliated with the official website. That comment is completely unfounded, unsubstantiated statement. This page is relevant to the VSU debate. It can be redirected from Australian Student Unions or NUS or UQ. User: China doll gloss 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe we can stop deletion of University Unions now.--Nicodemus75 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, following User:ambi's rewrite.fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopaedic, verifiable article (ext. link included) -- Ian ≡ talk 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, following Ambi's rewrite. -- Adz 04:45, 12 November 2005 (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.