Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Melbourne Student Union

Add links
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 keep. MBisanz talk 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne Student Union

[edit]
University of Melbourne Student Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable organization by our standards, notwithstanding a few mentions in the press--which don't seem to discuss the organization in any depth. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one of the most famous campus student organisations in the southern hemisphere. Its ructions (and there have been many) have made mainstream news (in significant detail) many, many times, and I'm not remotely exaggerating there: I saw this and was like "uh, you nominated what?". If you were trying to make some point by nominating a student union for deletion, you sure picked about the worst conceivable example in this end of the world. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's the nature of Student Unions that their activities are inward, thus not covered extensively by the press - regardless, this one seems to have quite a few mentions nationally, appears to have been mentioned in parliamentary debate, and exists in a notable university representing 42,000 students. If this criteria is applied, a lot more student unions would be nominated. The article definitely needs a lot of work, and doesn't appear to be have been extensively updated for some time, so keep and improve. Not totally familiar, so open to thoughts to merge Ollysay hi 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentions in parliamentary debate, that may help, if you have some secondary sources to verify this--or to verify anything about its importance. The best verified thing here seems to be some commentary about Mrs. Thatcher, verified with one mention in a newspaper. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you see that mass-AfDing a bunch of notable organisations instead of asking politely is going to get you off on the wrong foot if you're genuinely interested in seeing these topics fixed? This article doesn't need mentions in parliamentary debate, because it's about the lowest-quality of source on the subject; in this particular case, where major widely-reported stuff went down a year or two before our newspapers started publishing all their articles after that in Google for free (and that is not remotely the union's claim to notability, just the most obviously major news thing that happened last decade), you could have saved us all the trouble by going through Factiva before nominating everything in sight for deletion or making any kind of attempt at research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll just add what I was able to find regarding parliamentary debates[1][2], as I've made all other points above. I'll concede the reference is sort of fleeting, but the organisation is notable enough to be mentioned and understood. The context isn't readily available due to the nature of release of old Hansard. I'll add that many other much less notable organisations are kept on less, and within the context of education and universities in Australia, I'd be hard-pressed not to find this notable. For the sake of completeness of the encylopedia, I think this needs to stay Ollysay hi 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just in case that isn't enough, let me point out that Factiva has 472 newspaper hits for the union, many of them focused directly on the subject. I'd also point out that Factiva's coverage gets really patchy in Australia before 2000, and this is an organisation that has been around and prominent since 1887. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parliamentary Debates (Hansard).: House of Representatives, Volume 270
  2. ^ QUESTIONS IN WRITING - Voluntary Student Unionism
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Melbourne_Student_Union&oldid=1141936007"