Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University 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 Merge and redirect to the University. This is the usual and long-standing practice in the case of such student organizations, and nothing said in the very verbose arguments below refutes its application in this case. In closing, I take due notice of those arguing from outside policy, apparently on the basis of personal taste. Xoloz (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Southampton University Students' Union

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

Another completely non-notable Students' Union. The article asserts no notability through external links to credible independant sources, and as such fails WP:N. _TheIslander 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Surely there are reliable sources for student unions? Wouldn't publications from the university itself class as independent information? I know in the case of Exeter University Student's Guild it is technically and legally a seperate entity from the university.
• As for notability, surely it is notable for being a part of a large and recognised university? Man from the Ministry (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Standing by itself, no, it's not notable. Redirect and merge to the University article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to Man from the Ministry Publications from the university itself would definitely not count as independant information, for one main reason: In trying to attract prospective students to the university, the university is hardly going to be objective about it's union - it's going to make it sound as good as it can. You're quite right that technically and legally they're (on the whole) separate entities entirely, but in this case there's a large conflict of interest, so for all intents and purposes here they're the same institution. I would personally disagree that they're notable for being part of a large and recognised university. For a start, I'm a part of a large and recognised university, but I'm certainly not notable :P. Also, all (I think) universities in the UK have SUs, but they're all much of a muchness. There's the odd one here or there that's organised in a particularly unique way, or has something notable about it, but in the majority of cases (like this one), there's no particular factor that makes it any more notable than any other union, or, for that matter any different from any other union. _TheIslander 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept the point about universities having a vested interest, I was more referring to using Uni sources for 'facts and figures' information, rather than for opinion. I at first thought this was unsuitable for merging, as a lot of information would be lost, but having read through the article, I agree with Corvus cornix that it should be condensed, then Redirect and Merge.

• Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that the article is not written from a NPOV, lacks adequate citations and needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard, but this doesn't seem to be the point being made here. The argument made by TheIslander of lack of notability fails when you think about it for more than a nanosecond. TheIslander states: "Also, all (I think) universities in the UK have SUs, but they're all much of a muchness. There's the odd one here or there that's organised in a particularly unique way, or has something notable about it, but in the majority of cases (like this one), there's no particular factor that makes it any more notable than any other union". If I didn't see from the profile that this was a genuine user, I'd suspect this was a joke! On this reasoning, we should delete a lot of articles on wikipedia about institutions that are "much of a muchness". For example, why not delete the articles for the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers as they are "much of a muchness"? They're just like any other trade union, no? What about government local authorities, they're all "much of a muchness" on this absurd logic (and incidentally, they are part funded by the Government, just like student unions that are part funded by the Universities). Hold on, what about the Universities themselves? They're all "much of a muchness" too! What particularly differentiates Durham from Bristol? Or Oxford from Cambridge? They're all doing a bit of higher education here and there, but aren't they also much of a muchness. Why not delete the articles for all Universities! Come on folks, why not put the effort into actually improving the articles rather than silly discussions about deleting the articles for student unions up and down the country. Student Unions are institutions that are decades old, or in the case of Southampton, over a century old. Each Union can represent tens of thousands of students and have influenced the lives of millions over the years. That makes them notable. User:Sce1313 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nomination and WP:ORG. The article fails to establish any sort of notability and I don't believe this notability will ever exist. Student unions are not notable.—Noetic Sage 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities has a set of article guidelines stating that student unions are not notable. However, you may consider merging this article's key points, shrink it into a paragraph or so, and add it into the Student Life section of Southampton's main article. See Florida Institute of Technology#Student life. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find the guidance in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities stating that student unions are not notable. If that is the case, then every Students' Union wikipedia article should be deleted and this discussion, regardless of the merits or demerits, is pointless? What a moronic policy. You may as well start with the list of English_students_unions and work your way across the world from there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sce1313 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Take a look here, under 'Student life', specifically the line "Also, per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments almost never should have their own article.". _TheIslander 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Note that the guidelines are, as stated at the top, currently just proposed and 'References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"'. Indeed this specific part of the proposed guideline is under discussion on the talk page (not least because of the differing international understandings of what a students' union is) - please do not consider it to a standing consensus for AfDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow... "moronic"? Ahem, I believe the people who don't sign their posts as such, but I'll hold off my other comment, as I have certain respect and assumption of good faith. However, the article is not notable nonetheless. I merely pointed out that as per the proposed set of guidelines (as I worded back on my original post, not policy) that the argument that this article is not notable would be strengthened, not base the entire argument over this article's notability solely on this set of guidelines. This is a AfD on the article, please don't make it a battle on policy. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The main student union or student organization for each significant university is notable, and should be considered so because it's a major component of the university, gets a large amount of material off a page which will have n immense amount of other content, and serves as a home for what would otherwise be a large umber of separate article. Jamesontal should rethink his proposed guideline. We dont want an accumulation of very small articles, not ones that will be excessively long. This is the way to do it.DGG (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like I'm having the same conversation twice. Please refer to the student union discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines page on its RfC for thoughts about the article guidelines. I'll give you my excerpt:

• I have a serious problem with this set of guidelines. As an editor from the United Kingdom, it is very obvious that these guidelines have been written with the intention of regulating the entries for Colleges & Universities in the United States of America, and from an American point of view. It troubles me that University & College systems internationally are different to that found in the United States of America, and the guidelines per se could (and already are been) used by deletionists to remove student organisation articles en masse from the project, especially Students' Unions. In the UK, with exceptionally few exceptions, Students' Unions are seperate legal entities from the institutions they are associated with. It is misrepresentative for the project to concider them non-notable as an excuse to push them into the same articles as their associated institution. The Legal status of UK Student unions are also changing to a registered Charity status in line with the Charities Act 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorstenGuise (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. forgot to sign my comment. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, I wouldn't say that "troubling" would be the word when describing differences there mate. If you believe that the guidelines needs to be changed for student unions, you may write your own set of guidelines and propose them to be adapted, just like how this set of guidelines is trying to achieve consensus before adaptation. Yes, there are significant differences between the education systems in UK and US. However, student unions exist in just about every university. Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only. Now, I don't know (I'm American) whether the student union also serves as an "alumni association" for university graduates or not, but seeing that universities in America have their own alumni association separate from student unions, this topic would definitely needs some clarification. However, as for establishing notability for other international student union articles, you may state in the article's lead that the student union is a non-profit organization (or in UK terminology: Charity) with its non-profit registration listing made readily available. This should steer away from the university guidelines and begin to adapt to corporation guidelines on Wikipedia.- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - agreed. There seems to be a lot of weight placed on the fact that 'legally' an SU is a separate entity from the university. However, that's about as far as the separation goes. The SU wouldn't exist without the university; the university has a vested interest in the SU; the SU is comprised solely of people who also comprise the university etc. The two are undoubtably linked. Putting this entire argument to the side for a moment, and assuming that it was completely 100% separate, so what? All (UK) SUs are pretty much the same - there's little that differentiates one from the next, which is why (on the whole, with one or two examples) they're really not notable. _TheIslander 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - Disagree if the university folded the student union would continue functioning with the core focus of getting some compensation for the students and/or aiding there enrollment in other institution to complete their degrees, and fighting for the rights of the students in that situation it would cause a massive change in how it was run & it's aims BUT IT WOULD STILL EXIST! --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please let me know if there are still uncertainties regarding the issue. Hopefully we don't have to battle out the same conversation twice on two different fronts every time someone thinks their student union is somehow "more notable" than others. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep(You get one vote only. Additional comments are to be formatted as Comment - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)) The main student union or student organization for each significant university is notable, and should be considered so because it's a major component of the university, gets a large amount of material off a page which will have n immense amount of other content, and serves as a home for what would otherwise be a large umber of separate article. Jamesontal should rethink his proposed guideline. We dont want an accumulation of very small articles, not ones that will be excessively long. This is the way to do it. the above argument says all UK SUs are similar, which they are to a certain extent, but the details of the student organisations included in the articles will vary widely--they are each of them individually notable. . I dont see how dependence on the University makes one bit of difference-- the Medical School, etc., at a university usually also wouldnt exist separately, but the major divisions of a university are notable in their own right. DGG (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the double vote, I was coming back a day later & forgot. DGG (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to DGG: Figure out how to spell my name. Student union and organizations are not notable unless they are affiliated by a national network participating in several universities nationwide, like a fraternity/sorority. Since a university's student union is part of the university and cannot survive as an article by itself, it is not notable. Yes, a medical school or department (or in UK, a faculty) may not be notable IF the medical school does not have valid notability, such as having their own hospital, medical research facility, or so forth. Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

bad move, that one. I think we should try to reverse it. Since it ended up as a unilateral editing decision, that wont take a Deletion Review. Consider the size that the article on a major university would be! But I agree with you about fraternity and sorority chapters, student clubs, and almost all academic departments. they are third-order, and should be lumped together. First-order divisions, like Colleges (in the US sense of academic divisions of Universities) are another matter. If the Wikiproject has been advocating nonsense like this, it may need broader participation. I can see why it would have been bothered by the influx of fragmentary articles, but the solution is not to go overboard in the opposite direction. Since every medical school I have ever head of runs a hospital, you may not have picked a good example just above. 06:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't seen every single medical school though. That really isn't the point. If you believe that the policy is unreasonable, this is not the place to argue policy. Please move your argument to the article guidelines discussion. As for this article, until the article guidelines gets a major overhaul, this article will still be as is, not notable. If, later on, the article guidelines allow student unions/organizations to be reinstated, I'm sure this university's (and many many countless other universities') student union pages will return. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all student union's in the UK affiliated to the National Union of Students? I also think you are confusing the US definition of student union with the UK's definition. Please take a look at Students' Union for more information. As you can see, there is no such thing as a fraternity or sorority in the UK.

Comment They are, although Southampton is currently one of the few exceptions (having pulled out in 2002). Mind you Imperial have just joined after being out for over twenty years... There does seem to be some confusion on this - it also doesn't help when people use the term "student organisation" when that is a redirect to student society which a UK SU definitely doesn't come under. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Deletionism is possibly the greatest threat to Wikipedia. Per User:Andymmu's argument i can't see the arbitary rejection of every SU article as benefiting the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia Francium12 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure how satisfaction of WP:N and WP:ORG is arbitrary. Not all SU articles should be deleted - some do satisfy Wiki policies, but most do not. I get the impression (but I could be completely off base because I'm American) that there has been historical inclusion of SUs in Wiki due to lack of AfDs and as a result many people feel that this sudden interest in deleting them is unwarranted. I encourage everyone to check out arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. —Noetic Sage 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Hopefully the last one... Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please be objective on the issue at hand, the argument that this article should be deleted is based off of lack of individual notability as well as a direct conflict with WP:UNI's article guidelines. I suggest editors who want to keep this article not battle out on policy viewpoints, as it really doesn't help this article's AfD progress. Instead, if you really want to see this article survive, add more substantial references that would in fact substantiate this article's individual notability instead. Constructive debate is always encouraged, but this type of stalemate "well...too bad" arguments are really getting sad. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Given the policy on deletion, rightly or wrongly, suggests that all UK student unions should be deleted the discussion is therefore on whether Southampton is notable enough to be saved. I note that Oxford University Students' Union (OUSU) is not proposed for deletion, despite being smaller, younger and far less active in the lives of Oxford Students than Southampton (SUSU). (note that comments above have confused OUSU with the famous, older, and more significant Oxford Union - the debating society). So what are the criteria for escaping deletion? It isn't based on age as Southampton predates OUSU by over half a century. It certainly isn't based on size, either, as OUSU is far smaller than SUSU, in turnover, staff, involvement in funding student activities and so on. Looking at the OUSU article, it contains a total of two (minimal) references, and yet is surviving the chop? Looking at another Union, Nottingham Union, a comparable Union at a comparable University also seems to have survived the chop, despite a minimal number of references in their article. Almost every Union is notable in some way. In the case of Southampton, they still stand out as the biggest English University to NOT be a member of the NUS (National Union of Students). That suggests a notability (notoriety???) that makes it worthy of a separate wikipedia page. In this regard it would be interesting to see this point developed more in the article. Finally, I don't get the impression that the decision for proposal for deletion was a very objective one, certainly as no criteria seems to have been presented for discussion. It seems to be down to the less-than-objective criteria applied by TheIslander: "There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N." I say keep this article, but improve it. --Sce1313 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I guess that wasn't my last comment... I love it when people respond to my thread, yet they don't read my thread before posting. It is truly remarkable. Sce1313, I don't know who you are, but taking consideration of the many sock puppets surrounding this AfD, I cannot assume good faith and consider you a unique user until proven otherwise. Sock puppet or not, you still are arguing over policy, something I just mentioned not to do...because it doesn't change the outcome of the AfD. Just focus on getting more notable sources to counter the WP:N part of the argument and let the closing admin decide. OK? I'm tired of hearing the same reiterations over and over again (it's almost like the Wikipedia users who want to keep this article are thinking in a collective...perhaps SUSU has a Borg hive?... which brings me to the conclusion that many of the voters who have nominated to keep is actually the same person) Note to the closing admin I strongly suggest you check the IP logs, etc to authenticate the voters on this AfD in particular to double-check the use of sock puppets. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Firstly, I realised I hadn't voted. Secondly, I'm not a sock puppet, as any admin will be able to see from the IP logs. Indeed at least one of the names on the posts above I recognise, and can easily be found by googling, as a well known Student Union hack who has no direct connection with Southampton! Thirdly, I still don't see the objective criteria that the proposer implies, as I illustrated with my comparisons of SU articles. In my experience being involved at 4 students' unions in the UK from the very best Universities to the decidedly mediocre, and in quite different capacities, I fail to see how the proposer is applying the objective requirements of WP:N. It just seems to me that this is an unwinnable argument when the porposer will not state their criteria. Finally, my apologies for offending the admins on Wikipedia, but not everyone has copious free time to learn all of the nuances of wikipedia policy and practice, but we're willing to learn from those with the patience to help, rather than patronise us, less experienced users. --Sce1313 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can assure User:Jamesontai that I am also not a sock puppet. More to the point, I have never been to Southampton in my life! But I also want to ask, at what point do student unions come under WP:UNI? They aren't universities or institutes of higher education. They are (in the UK) legally defined as independent of their parent institutions. WikiProject Universities say in their first paragraph that they aim to improve coverage of universities and colleges, it says nothing about student unions other than they should be mentioned under a heading like Student life. The policy of which you speak is only a provisional guideline, and one that is under dispute. Andy (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I diagree with a comment which has been made in this AfD. However as an unregistered user I don't know the best way to contest it. Do I...

a) Own the page. Write a comment as long as War and Peace to prove the admin that closes this that I must be right b) Discredit everything everyone else says by refering to the Arguments to Avoid in Votes for Deletion regardless of an arguments quality c) Oh dear, its not a vote but if it was I would be losing - must be hundreds of sockpuppets! d) Stick to a wikipedia policy so strictly that I risk falling foul of Don't be a dick' 137.222.229.74 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now A somewhat longwinded position, in the hope of bringing this in some direction (and also not from a sock-puppet either). I admit this is a bit stepping onto the broader policy areas, but I think this is needed. There are a mixture of problems flying around this AFD, of which one of the main ones is whether or not there is something such as inherent notability, and if there is whether or not students' unions (on the UK model) qualify.

On the basic concept of inherent notability I think there generally is agreement that some subjects are automatically notable and each individual article doesn't need to "[assert] notability through external links to credible independant sources" although it does help (and cited sources are useful for fact checking). Picking one utterly unrelated example at random, there aren't yet any cited on the article for George Gardiner (politician) (who was the Member of Parliament for the area nextdoor to where I grew up) but the article gives an indication as to why he qualifies - former member of a national legislature. That article has not yet been proposed for AFD but I think any attempt would have a snowball's chance in Hell. This is primarily because for that subject area the idea that all members of national legislatures (or at the very least of the UK House of Commons) are inherently notable is generally shared across Wikipedia.

With students' unions I think a big part of the problem is a lack of agreement as to whether there is inherent notability for them. This I think has contributed to the lack of cited sources actually asserting it (along with the fact that in my experience many of the SU articles have been worked on by less experienced Wikipedia users who don't always know the basics of policy; it also doesn't help that some obvious internal and external sources ranging from SU minutes to back issues of the local papers are often not easily accessible) as many of those working on the articles don't immediately realise the need for them (and often by the time they do, an AFD is stacking up making it seem like a waste of time to try at this stage). It's almost one of those "if you know the subject area well the notability is obvious to you; if you don't it isn't" (although sweeping generalisations never encompass everyone) and we're getting into minutae as whether SUSU is notable on the bais of currently being "the largest SU not in the NUS" (it's not unless Open University Students Association has just joined) as a quick substitute for a process of encouraging the articles to get sorted out.

Now WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is one of the easiest arguments to invoke in an AFD discussion, but I think that term is overused. In particular it shouldn't be asserted when someone cites another article on a very similar subject - to give an example from this discussion, the article Oxford University Student Union doesn't have any external sources either and when such similar subjects have had articles for a considerable period of time and not come in for AFD it does make people wonder about the objective criteria (especially as the OUSU article is easily reachable from the SUSU one by both the Aldwych Group template and the category). This is probably one where a group nomination would have been better than only having some articles up for individual discussion. It could also help guide the drafting of the policy which is provoking concern in the various debates.

I can't immediately spot whether anyone has previously tagged the article with comments about the need to assert notability through sources, and there's certainly nothing on the talk page. So my suggestion for now is 1). do not delete this article (and the others up for AFD); 2) put a clear suggestion/request about notability and sources on the talk page that explains it rather better than some of the templates that don't always scream "THIS ARTICLE MAY BE DELETED IF IT DOESN'T GET THIS"; and 3) try and get an actual policy in place on the inherent notability issue rather than just a current proposal. Then the outcomes of either 2) or 3) will give a better position for a way forward that can command consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Quick response to Timrollpickering. The issue here is not WP:CITE or anything with references, it is WP:N and WP:ORG. A lot of these AfD'd articles don't even establish notability in the text of the article. If these SUs were notable wouldn't the creators of the page at least say why when it's created (even if it's not accompanied by a reference)? Perhaps not because they are new to Wikipedia, which is fine. But that is still no reason to keep the articles. —Noetic Sage 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Well the problem with that assumption is that you're overlooking that many of the article creators are, I suspect, assuming that a students' union is automatically notable, and so if they are aware of the need for notability they assume the article does assert it by definition - hence the reason why this debate keeps coming back to policy. And CITE is a side effect but often articles that are backing up the facts with decent citations are usually generating assertions of notability through independent sources by default. IMHO very few articles actually say "the subject is notable because..." but usually the citations do some of the job for them. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment What you think is not what it is. As much as you want to defend the student union, it still does not establish notability and fails the WP:ORG guidelines. Let's put it this way, sure, we have guidelines for university related articles for WP:UNI. It says student organizations are not notable unless there is significant proof with references (not just that the organization exists, but why it is notable). Remember: I was the one who suggested in one of many AfDs revolving this same issue to establish SUSU as an independent organization separate from our Universities Guidelines, yet no one has improved upon the article to show that. It still fails both WP:N as well as WP:ORG. Editors defending this article were urged (many times) to find proof, yet it was not done. And don't forget, we're editors that can edit any article inside and outside of our WikiProjects we participate in. I do new pages patrol alongside many (countless) other editors, which means it involves me patroling a myriad of articles that come through. Right now the issue at hand isn't sock puppetry if the users are different people, it is the original issue at hand: notability. Notability still isn't established, and the defending editors keep whining but the article isn't being properly improved to survive the AfD. Let's put it this way, I'm tired of this discussion, and I'm sure whoever the closing admin is will have a nightmare reading all of this (to the admin: much sympathy for you). If you want this article alive, I suggest notability be established ASAP so we can all get on with our lives. I look forward to deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union from my watchlist. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, the term "student organization" is an especially unhelpful term when that's a redirect to "student society", an article which (implicitly) says it does not encompass students' unions and only further confuses the matter. And also it's not a guideleine but a proposed guideline - invoking proposed policy as holy writ in AFDs, especially when the specific part of the proposed policy is under discussion, is not conducive to consensus. Getting the notability sorted out is, I agree, a key point (and one best handled by those who know where to look, although if they're going to spot these comments I'd be very surprised) but I do reiterate that very often the first time a lot of more causual Wikipedia users see that there is a problem and that notability is challenged is an AFD debate filling up with "deletes" - where prior to the initiation of the AFD was it raised on the article/talk page that inherent notability isn't automatically assumed for SUs and that it needed to be asserted individually? As for digging up sources I'll have a go (although as it's the last week of term at many UK universities this may take a bit of time) but I think the wider issues need to be thrashed out rather than having the same debate umpteen times and getting precedent all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic Comment By the way...any chance Southampton University will change its name to the Southampton Institute of Technology? (Referring to the movie, if you don't get it, the forget I said anything) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Off topic reply IMHO absolutely not. "Southampton Institute" is the short form of the old name for Southampton Solent University. From what I've seen, Southampton Uni people would never do something that could lead to the two being confused. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, have you seen Accepted? I know... it's Southampton, not South Harmon, but the connection is still there... lol - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah not seen that movie - but you've probably not heard the way some Soton people referr to to Solent as "the Dimstitute", which is why I doubt such a suggestion would ever be remotely considered. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, watch the movie when you get a chance (remember it's American English, so use closed captioning... lol it's a trick I picked up from watching Top Gear on BBC America...hahaha), see the movie and you'll smack the next person who will EVER suggest a rename to Southampton Institute of Technology. :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Considering the breadth of this discussion would the village pump be a more appropriate venue? It also needs to be said that as SU's are different in different countries any guidelines should be specific to that. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Jameson L. Tai suggests that editors should improve the article to prevent it being deleted, but why would anyone waste time editing an article that is, according to the wikipedia policy, automatically non-notable. What a waste of an editor's time! The wikipedia masters need to decide what the policy is: if all this article needs is references, remove the deletion tag, put a tag requiring references and we can then "put the effort into actually improving the articles rather than silly discussions about deleting them" (quoting from my first post on this page...). --Sce1313 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Point of information 1 - Southampton University Students' Union (SUSU) is actually a charity under English law (I don't remember which one). It's not a trade union. Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Point of information 2 - From a NPOV, I'm definitely sure that SUSU is going very strong out side the NUS (National Union of Students). Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Considering this article for deletion is laughable (from a NPOV). Keep This article needs time to be improved. Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestions taken to the letter I'm glad people are actually reading some of my comments, but I distinctly remember suggesting editors to either improve the article so that it wouldn't be deleted or else my vote would be to delete. Wikipedia does not need to rewrite their policy to suit your individual needs. The world does not revolve around you (surprise!) and established policies, including WP:N and WP:ORG both have reached consensus by a majority of Wikipedia editors. I'll once again try to steer this AfD back on track, but seeing how people only read parts of what I write and take them out of context, I don't see how this will work. But here it is anyways, this is a AfD, not RfC on notabilty guidelines. Please focus your comments on the article. Thank you. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:45, 13 December 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.