Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Bradford Union

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 redirect to University of Bradford. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. A mention in a 3 paragraph BBC piece is not sufficient. Recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Bradford Union

University of Bradford Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete NN union; nothing special, and very non-notable. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Originally part of the university article but separated due to size, info on the student unions is useful and should at least should be merged back in, as the original entry was truncated on the split.
This is also exactly the time in the academic cycle when students will be looking at prospective universities prior to clearing and the start of a new year. The majority of Category:English_students'_unions would also fall under these. UBU is unusual in the non-hierarchical structure, and organisation of the AA, join one join all, don't know if that makes it notable or not. (Yes, it's my old uni, I'm biased) --Nate1481( t/c) 09:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Having looked several student union articles ave been nominated AfD, should these not be grouped?

--Nate1481( t/c) 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as there's not enough cohesion in the student unions to merit grouping. It would actually be much harder to have a viable discussion on the subject if multiple unions were put together. It's better to consider the unions on their own merits, if there are any. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As notable as other student unions in UK universities. Problems should be addressed with sources to improve the artcile, not delete it. --Bduke 11:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve, per Bduke. Timrollpickering 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a student union catalogue--Victor falk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Nate1481( t/c) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As previously mentioned, the union hierarchy is notable. Does warrant improvement, esp. with regard to sources but I consider the information to be useful. (Former student and have previously edited article) NRTurner 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should look for those sources, that would be more convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This union is not inherently notable, so it requires "significant coverage from independent sources", which it lacks Corpx 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment almost no arguments have been offered having any relation to thw actual content of the article--and all are the same as for the other afds, both pro and con: I would like any opinion about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds where nothing individiual is said as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific agrguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suggest you ask the closing admin if they close as delete for the reasons for their decision, or possibly taking your suggestion to the village pump and seeing if you can make it into a policy. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. For one thing, I don't think the category is likely to be deleted at this time, for another, the existence of a category or even other articles is not always indicative of the inclusion of an article. Or exclusion for that matter. It's rarely (though not always) a bad idea to refer to other articles in an AFD discussion. Usually the best way to support an article is by letting it stand on its own merits. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Clear attempt at demonstrating notability through third party sources, but needs more than just the one - the primary sources don't count. Are there more to be had along the lines of the BBC source?. MrZaiustalk 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above comments. Mathmo Talk 22:02, 7 August 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.