Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWE Students' 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 was Keep. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UWE Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources (with the sole exception to point out which BUSA awards have been won, which is not at all unique or notable for this union, as many will win BUSA awards often). Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). _TheIslander 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article, and reject the proposed guideline, per arguments on other articles. If the guideline is only proposed, its a little absurd to use it to reject these articles. DGG (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, it is not good practice to use a proposed guideline as a basis for article deletion, especially as the proposed guideline is contentious. Reject the proposed guideline. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was never at the link you cite in the first place - as per my text above, it's here that you want to be looking. (edit conflict - it seems that you've noticed your error). Also, you state "it is not good practice to use a proposed guideline as a basis for article deletion". For a start, please re-read my argument, specifically "Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources...". This is the basis for my nomination, and this is based on non-negotiable policy. My next statment, about the proposed policy, just backs this up, and I see no problem in doing that bearing in mind that I've made it crystal clear that it's just that - a proposed policy. _TheIslander 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (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.