Talk:University of St Andrews Students' Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was merge back to University of St Andrews.

A bit top-heavy, don't ye think?

Also, the SSC bit will need an overhall next year once we've figured out who's sitting on there for the Design Team, and Ents will have to go, but we can worry about that later. Lordrosemount 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, agreed, David. Flagged it with the {{intro length}} tag, so someone bothers to sort it out, or I'll do it when I get a spare minute! M0RHI 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


"Retiring" sabbaticals are not offered an Honorary Life Membership automatically. To protect privacy, and to stay within the rules set up by the SAEC on giving out HLMs, I will not divulge which former sabb was not given one. But if you ask around, the former sabb would give you the honest answer.-- Bonnie Ryder And there has to be a lot more on what the Students' Association does. Someone want to cut, paste, and edit down "The Book"?

Royce, what's that IP address person doing to this article? You've reverted his/her edits twice already, but now they're back again with an edit note that seems to make no sense considering there's been no discussion of the edits here, on your talk page or on his/hers.

You're quite right, of course, that this whole thing is unsourced, POV and, I might also add, riddled with weasel words. It should be removed. Lordrosemount 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion

Per precedent of other Students Unions (eg everything in Category:English students' unions, Category:Scottish Students' Unions and Category:Welsh students' unions) being listed (as distinct from a student club), this article should not be deleted. There are sections that are unverified and have been either removed or tagged with citation needed tags (per WP:V). There is notable information in here, but it needs to be developed, note deleted, and certainly not speedy deleted. Contested on reasons of notability comparable to the 60-odd other Students' Unions and Students' Associations listed on Wikipedia. M0RHI | Talk to me 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

I have declined to delete via speedy. It makes at least a claim to notability. If the notability is contested, the appropriate course is to take it to Afd.

I agree that this is not for speedy. It is a poor article that needs a lot of improvement, but speedy is not the way to go about it. Emoscopes Talk 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There are sections that need a good culling, and tidying up, but I think the edits made over the past 3-5 days have not been in the best of faiths from a neutral POV, and have detracted from the main article. I'll start a big tidy. M0RHI | Talk to me 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] merge

whoa! I think you are missing the point. The Students' Association is not part of the University. Yes, the article is poor, yes it needs improvement. But the University page is the wrong place for it. I think you could go about this in a more constructive way than by just going ahead and doing a drastic merge before there is a chance for discussion and consensus. Emoscopes Talk 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel merging into the University of St Andrews article is appropriate, partly because it should be developed into an article encompassing more areas than the university itself (CHESS, other Students' Associations etc). Parts of the University article have already been split due to length, and this should be no exception. The Students' Association is not part of the university per se and before any mergers are made, dialogue should be entered into. M0RHI | Talk to me 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


The question is not whether the Association is part of the University, but whether it is NOTABLY separate from it. Aside from one incident where the Association got some press because it threw the Saint out of their offices, the organisation hasn't done anything.

I will quote "WP:Notability Companies and Organisations"--

1 A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Non-commercial organizations 2) Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above. Other criteria are: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.

Under these criteria, CHESS would be notable but the member institution would not be. I will continue to merge unless some serious evidence comes to light that St Andrews Union and the functions spelled out on this page--- especially officers and remits--- can be given national importance. Until such time the Association is only relevant as part of the greater University experience in St Andrews, or, at a stretch, the local town at St Andrews. Remember that Fife Council can tell the Association how to run its business (late license, etc)--- the Association is not a matter of regional, national, or even global importance. What information isn't on the website is entirely unsourced--- this does not serve the public interest. Discostu333 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)discostu

Copied from my talkpage for response here: The Association's article is: -Uncited -Fails notability test for non-profit (not national or international in scope) It should be merged with University of St Andrews. The University gives the organisation its relevance; alone it does not merit recognition or an article. The same is true of most Unions except Oxford and Cambridge, which actually have important alumna(e) and are referred to in the media and the press. The St Andrews Association cannot claim the same and, like other Unions, should be deleted or merged with its University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discostu333 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me, but I think you'll find that the University of St Andrews Students' Association has important alumni also. The current First Minister of Scotland, for example. By not waiting for a consensus to be established, rail-roading through your merging is at best unconstructive, at worst, petty vandalism. You clearly are set in your opinions, and clearly do not know much about the Union or the University. Emoscopes Talk 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And while I'm at it, the 2nd in line to the British throne is also an alumnus. Emoscopes Talk 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is currently uncited, and this is why it was proposed for deletion. Proposition for deletion gives a leeway of five days to improve the article. Please respect this.
The same may be true of other Unions, but these are represented in articles. Like many other parts of the University, the article has been split to keep it within Wikipedia's length guidelines. If it helps, you can think of it like this.
As an administrator has shown, it attempts to show notability. This can be cemented with proper citations, which can be provided within 5 days. Please again respect this time, and if you are still unhappy, please propose a WP:MERGE then. And please, please, please, talk before jumping in. M0RHI | Talk to me 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, what's happened here all of a sudden? Somebody posts a rant about the place, I tag it up in an attempt either to have the claims verified or provide a case for its later deletion it is along with M0RHI, and now we've got all kinds of nonsense going on about merges and deletions.
Discostu333, what are you about? First you accuse me of being childish for tagging up legitimately unverified claims, and then you come back and claim the whole thing needs to be deleted or merged for not being notable: I've very sorry, but it becomes very difficult to assume good faith with this kind of behaviour.
Let's make a couple of things clear. First of all, the fact that one person believes every students' union and association in the country should be deleted as non-notable does not make it true, and you can cite all the policies you want but the huge number of people who've contributed to and read these articles over the years constitutes a consensus that these articles are entirely valid, so a delete nomination on those grounds is absurd.
Secondly, most of these new {{Fact}} tags are frivolous, and shouldn't be there. Tagging the date of establishment of the institution? I mean, I ask you - you can go into the Committee Room and read it from the top of the past officers' board, for goodness sake. There's a huge difference between this kind of fact - which are actually, you know, facts - and the kind in that spurious 'criticism from members' section, which consist of nothing more than opinions, weasel words and what WP would describe as 'original research'. Whilst it would be lovely to have a citation for everything, there is very little need to clutter the article up by tagging facts that are known to be true, whatever one's opinion about the 'criticism' section.
Can I therefore propose that the more obviously spurious tags be deleted? Lordrosemount 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As the result of the deletion discussion was to merge this back to University of St Andrews, I suggest someone (M0RHI) executes the merge. Otherwise I shall be happy to do so myself.86.135.217.151 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Discostu333

I'll by all means do it, but I won't be able to do it until the 13th August. What I would do, if I were you, would be to create a Sandbox page, something like User:Discostu333/Sandbox, link it from here, create a page there, and request discussion on it. That way, we can get a developed and informed concensus before the change. I reccommend about two weeks' discussion, after which time you can assume it's well enough developed to warrant a live version. I remind all editors to WP:CIV and WP:AGF when contributing to the new article (Student organisations at St Andrews University), as outlined by User:Daniel Case in his closing of the AfD. Any other guidance, either ask User talk:Daniel Case for some guidance, or I will be able to contribute periodically over the next week. M0RHI | Talk to me 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge article

I have taken the liberty to produce User:Discostu333/Student organisations to faciltate discussion and formulation of a finished article to go at Student organisations at St Andrews University. Any particularly contentious issues should be discussed before contribution / revert at User talk:Discostu333/Student organisations. I hope everyone will see fit to contribute and make this article constructive and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia . M0RHI | Talk to me 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

The unregistered user 86.135.217.151 inappropriately reverted some constructive additions I made earlier today about the activities of the Association, for the spurious reason that the sources I had quoted were offline. I have reverted this reversion on the basis that WP:CITE states clearly that offline sources are acceptable, and should be cited in a manner similar to what I've used (though if any other editor wants to amend the formatting of the citation, they can naturally be my guest), and I would also refer the user to Help:Reverting which states, If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

If these reversions persist, I should consider them vandalism; can anyone advise on the correct procedure to take in this case? Lordrosemount 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are correct in your assumptions that the information added is notable, and indeed does not detract from the article, please be bold and reinstate. If this continues, and breaks the Three Revert Rule, you may wish to seek guidance with the admins there. Else, if you believe this is vandalism, do report it to the administrator's board for vandalism. Providing things don't detract from the subject matter of the article, are not frivolous, and meet other Wikipedia policies, do be bold. M0RHI | Talk to me 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)