Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington University Student 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.

Washington University Student Union

The result was Merge to Campus_life_at_Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Washington_University_Student_Union (non-admin closure). The keeps and deletes largely cancelled each other, leaving a consensus for merging. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources beyond WUSU website or student newspaper. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I found only one potentially reliable source, but it seems almost trivial. The organization is local in scope and does not have enough national coverage to satisfy WP:ORG.—Noetic Sage 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no non-trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established in hundreds of non-trivial mentions in Student Life: [1]. Note that Student Life is completely independent of both the Union and the school, so it's a secondary source that easily meets WP:RS. Oren0 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is confusing that the official name of the publication is called Student Life. As Oren0 wrote, it is not published by the Student Union.--Lmbstl (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Student newspapers are not reliable because they do not have a history of fact-checking and accuracy. Being secondary is only one of the requirements of being reliable.—Noetic Sage 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says? Student Life has been around and independent for 130 years and has won awards for excellence. It easily passes WP:RS as far as editorial control and has been used as a source in several Wikipedia articles. Oren0 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just an FYI, I found 14 sources in a matter of about 10 minutes, listed here. I already voted for a merge, but there is not a dearth of sources.--Lmbstl (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As it stands, the article cannot stand on its own, and I vote that it be merged into Campus life at Washington University in St. Louis unless improvements are made.--Lmbstl (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources There are a total of six wustl.edu links, which in this case, does not help establish notability because it's just the university website of the SU. Three of them comes from studlife.com, the university's student newspaper, also not a WP:RS. The collegeprofiles.com reference is a trivial source. KMOV is a local TV station, hence a local source. The Columbia Tribune and insidehighered.com would have passed as good sources, but the article was more about the Student Union President, not the organization itself, hence fails as well. STLtoday.com source is local as well. So...every single source you've added so far - does not satisfy WP:N. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original request to merge was contested because of violations of DELETING, MAJOR CHANGES, Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, and PRESERVING INFORMATION, which made this entire episode unnecessarily contentious. For the record, I do not agree with the implicit objective that the article should be removed without an opportunity to be reviewed/improved.--Lmbstl (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I know that some editors oppose a merger, but I think it is the fairest solution. To me, this AfD isn't about obliterating Washington University Student Union from Wikipedia. It's about presenting in the context of Washington University. This is quite simply a question of presentation, and I say we present the information in the parent article. Lovelac 7 03:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "presenting the Washington University Student Union... in the context of Washington University.: that;'s exactly right. The major parts of the University are appropriate for separate treatment. Just as the college of Arts and Sciences there should have a separate article, dealing with the academic side of things, so should this. DGG (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why are some of these more debated than others? I have to get to work, but these student governments have to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements like any other organization. Delete them all unless they have citations showing real, non-local notability. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is to delete because you think most of the other AfD's will end in deletes? Judge each on its own merits. This one has numerous sources as linked above and it, like most of today's noms for these groups, is getting significant keep support. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is "Delete them all unless they have citations showing real, non-local notability", like I just typed. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the university is important enough the branches are important. Notability is about importance. And a major state university is of non-local importance. DGG (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these AfD discussions are supposed to center around Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not User:DGG policies and guidelines. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually notability must be present in each subarticle as well. Or else you'd end up with articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undergraduate Business Program at Cornell University. Cornell's definitely a notable university, but their undergraduate business program sure as hell is not. When considering student organizations in each this SU, experienced editors often can't ignore guidelines set by WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:ORG, and other pertinent Wikipedia policies. Although most of these SU articles are written by current students, past alumni, and the occasional Joe from a rival university, these articles are often not notable with trivial or no reliable sources to back their article up. We really should not label every SU article across the board for AfD, but this should not stop editors from judging each and every single SU article separately using existing policies and guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim & Merge, No Redirect Article deserves merging into the WU article, but not notable enough to be its own article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.