Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of St Andrews Students' Association
- 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 back into University of St Andrews#Student organisations, at least for the time being (see below). This was a tough call and I read this whole discussion, read the article over as well as the University of St Andrews article, then slept on it.
This has not been the ideal deletion discussion. The original nomination is of questionable faith (but, as pointed out, that's no barrier to an assessment of the article's inclusion-worthiness independent of the reasons given for its deletion) and there's some pushing and shoving going on in the long indented passages. The keep arguments are basically, as noted, WP:WAX. The delete arguments are, similarly, responses pointing that out, and we have a couple that come largely from apparent single-purpose anon accounts (albeit very well-informed ones).
Student organizations, even statutorily-mandated ones at large, esteemed and ancient universities that count important political figures among their alumni/ae, are neither inherently notable nor inherently non-notable. There are no guideliness to that effect at the moment. Nor can we assert notability simply because other Scottish universities have articles on their student unions (many of which, in fact, are very stubby and even better candidates for merges back to the original article). So we have to fall back on WP:N. And, as Mister Manticore keeps pointing out, no independent secondary non-trivial coverage exists. The Saint's being kicked out of the building is more relevant to a claim of notability for it than the Student Association.
I am, however, convinced by the keep arguments that the organization is notable enough within the context of the university that our coverage of the university would absolutely demand it. It is said that the article was spun off because it was getting too long ... well, it seems to me that most of the length in here is non-encyclopedic material such as the coat of arms, the committee structure and the organizational bylaws. Even the keep voters admit it's gotten too long. And I think about a paragraph or three back in the main article would cover what needs to be covered: the basics of the organization such as its legal mandate, history of creation in 1983 and the recent controversies over The Saint.
Or, the article could be converted into another daughter article: Student organisations at St Andrews University, split off from the current section, as has happened with many other university articles. In fact, I really think this would be the best option. I will tag the articles appropriately. Daniel Case 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- University of St Andrews Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article fails to establish itself as notable. It provides no independent secondary source information to verify its claims about its history or its purpose, or its national or global relevance. Independently, the article fails the notability test.
It is properly relevant to the University of St Andrews, and mergers to that article have been enacted--- only to be reverted by a certain editor (Morhi) who has affiliations with the organisation. The Association has a web-site and that web-site is the appropriate venue for this information. Wikipedia is not.
Editors who are affiliated with the organisation have attempted to control the views of other students, silencing well-known criticism of it with citation burdens and reversions without citing any of their own facts presented with impartial third-party secondary sources. The section "criticism", which has been proposed for deletion by M0RHI, actually DOES provide an independent, verifiable third-party source, which the rest of the article does not.
By preventing the article from being merged, and by keeping the article within their narrow parameters of what they believe it should contain, they are selectively applying their version of the truth and using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote and advertise their organization without allowing the true, encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia to shine through. It is vanity on the part of the organisation that the article continues to exist, and (being citation-free) it is being tailored to present a skewed perspective on the organisation and its importance. Student observers are watching this exchange and it will be noted in the autumn.
If M0RHI persists in ensuring the article presents a skewed view of the Association, and will not merge it with the St Andrews Uni article, it should be deleted, and swiftly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discostu333 (talk • contribs) 14:07, July 23, 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — There are plenty of precedents for this type of article under Category:Students' unions. Edit conflicts should be resolved on the article's talk page or elsewhere. The length of this article is sufficient to justify keeping it separate from the UoStA article. I am unclear whether this nomination falls under WP:POINT. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete -- I have no clue about this organization. However, it seems to me that if it was notable, the author could come up with some sources other than the group's bylaws and website. Cap'n Walker 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — As User:RJHall points out, per precedent of other Students Associations being included. It does need to be cut down, but the section I tagged as to delete are unfounded, which Wikipedia is not the place for. Further, I believe the AfD is being filed for the wrong reasons and not in good faith (hence the threat to bring up this issue when term resumes). Further, if the 'allegations' section can be verified, and conforms to WP:NPOV, I'm more than happy for it to stay. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, the University of St Andrews article has already been split in the past, as the article was becoming too long. This is why I don't believe a merge is appropriate. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — As per RJH, many other articles on students associations, I see no reason this one should not exist. orudge 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Heriot-Watt has a page for their SU so why not Andrews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quick_Reference (talk • contribs)
- Keep This is an organisation that is not a part of the University, but by it's very nature is seperate. As the organisation that speaks for the students, to merge with the University article would be inappropriate and imply a greater organisational relationship than exists. It is clear the motivation for deletion isn't based upon anything other than personal reasons, not concern for article quality or relevance. Steveo h 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Boy, there's a lot of WP:WAX comments already. I'm sorry folks, but simply saying "But these articles exist" doesn't mean all that much since many of them probably should be deleted as well. It's possible some coverage of this association might be appropriate on the university page, but I'm not convinced there's anything to merit anything beyond a brief mention. Certainly not the level of organizational detail present on this page now. Skull and Bones is an example of a society with established notability, this is so far not. FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge absent a showing of some particular notability of this organization. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of St Andrews Liberty Club FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge as above. The only arguments that have been put forward thus far are (A) "Keep the article because there are other SU articles" and (B) "The article is really long so we should keep it separate." Neither length nor the fact that it is a SU makes it notable; simply because other SUs have websites does not mean that they are notable, either; of the millions of articles on Wikipedia the SU ones need to abide by the notability rules just like any other article. I suggest this page be deleted and the very brief relevant-to-students information (what the Union is, basically what it does, and where to find its website) is included with the University of St Andrews. It is certainly not worthy of its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.238.156 (talk • contribs)
- Keep and improve. A notable institution representing the students of a notably ancient and world renowned institution. Also has a number of notable alumni - the current First Minister of Scotland and second in line to the British Throne are two recent examples off the top of my head. Do not merge, as the Students' Assocciation is distinct and independent from the University. I do not see how the Liberty Club example can be used; the latter is a minor and specific organisation run by and for a select few students. The Students' Association is run by all students at the University, for all students. Emoscopes Talk 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said before, individual notable members means nothing unless their notability is somehow related to their membership. I don't even see any indication as to Alex Salmond or Prince William being significant members in their articles. Is there something important to what either of those persons did while in this Student Association? The most I get is a quote by the president in the articles describing Prince William's attending the college. Not something I'd consider definitive demonstration as to importance. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have made some major style improvements, and attempted to make a more concise article that better asserts its notability. Emoscopes Talk 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said. I just don't see a good reason to delete it. Novium 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps you might wish to examine the arguments mentioned above? Are you familiar with the concept of notability as applied to Wikipedia? I don't think you are familiar with the concept of AFD, which isn't a raw vote, but rather a discussion.(UTC) FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did in fact read them, Mister Manicore, but I did not find them convincing. (so much for "assuming good faith" on your part). This organization exists. It may not be important to everyone, but what is?. Notability is so arbitrarily applied, and with such vague definitions, that I am forced to conclude that it is little more than a stalking horse in this case. Novium 11:12, 24 July 2007
- Um, no, I believe it's quite right to be concerned about whether or not a given Wikipedia editor is familiar with the policies and practices of Wikipedia, especially on AFD. Therefore, I quite politely asked you to examine the arguments already presented, and inquired whether or not you were familiar with the concept of notability as applied to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with that, and responding with an accusation of assuming bad faith on my part is not something I consider a good idea. Your comments reflected ignorance to me, not a disagreement with the application of notability. If you disagree with that, perhaps it would have been better to say so in a more outright fashion? You may be correct in your concern that it is an arbitrary standard, but none of that concern was apparent in your initial comment. I'm not a mind-reader, I can't know everything that goes on in your head. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Maybe if it was improved, it'd stand a chance, but as of right now, it reads as if it were an 'About Us' page on the Student Association website. Despite numerous requests, the maker and main editor of the page has failed to prove notability, instead riding on waving Wiki rules at everyone who tries to get the page into working order. It remains non-notable, at least not notable enough to warrant its own page, and should be merged into the St Andrews page. Vaguely 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The funny thing is, since Emoscope's improvement, the only thing that's become verifiable is the criticism of the organisation rather than the organisation itself. I continue to supposrt Deletion or a Merge paired with a serious edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.216.210 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Looks to me like a bad faith nomination - the nominating reason is a long winded rant about a content dispute and ends with the very unsettling threat that "Student observers are watching this exchange and it will be noted in the autumn." - That is not how an AfD discussions should be framed - take the student politics elsewhere, this is an encyclopaedia. SFC9394 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, while there may be issues of a troubling concern, and I do agree, the nomination probably needed to step back a bit, that doesn't mean this organization meets the existing standards and practices to be found on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The main student body at each university is notable. It is specific clubs and societies that are not. Golfcam 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm following your argument, as this article isn't about the student body as a whole, but about a specific organization of the university. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The word 'body', used in this sense, is interchangeable with the word 'organisation', and the Students' Association is not an 'organisation of the university', it is a separate, legally-defined entity. Lordrosemount 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you may mean student body to refer to this organization, however, I use student body to refer to the students as a whole of the university regardless of any organizations. For example, describing the number of students at a university? That would be clearly about the student body. Describing the actions of this group? Not really about the student body. And the point that it is a separate entity is exactly why there is a concern here. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you or I may mean by the word in any given context is irrelevant: I was explaining to you what the user who posted the comment meant in this context, for clarification. Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do realize that you were trying to explain the statement, but that doesn't mean the statement was any less unclear or inaccurate. The main student body is one thing. This organization is another. Thus the one assertion doesn't validate this article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you or I may mean by the word in any given context is irrelevant: I was explaining to you what the user who posted the comment meant in this context, for clarification. Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you may mean student body to refer to this organization, however, I use student body to refer to the students as a whole of the university regardless of any organizations. For example, describing the number of students at a university? That would be clearly about the student body. Describing the actions of this group? Not really about the student body. And the point that it is a separate entity is exactly why there is a concern here. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The word 'body', used in this sense, is interchangeable with the word 'organisation', and the Students' Association is not an 'organisation of the university', it is a separate, legally-defined entity. Lordrosemount 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm following your argument, as this article isn't about the student body as a whole, but about a specific organization of the university. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. First of all, I love all of these comments about how the article fails to assert its own importance. If that were the case (and if it's so much more troubling a problem for this article than for half the other articles on Wikipedia), the good-faith action to take would have been, in the first instance, to seek out such a source and add it, and failing that to tag the article and give other editors a reasonable amount of time to seek one out. Given the number of editors who have worked on it, and what is stated in the article about its size, length of standing legal basis (this is, in case anyone has forgotten, an institution whose existance is mandated by Act of Parliament), this shouldn't have been hard to rectify; the good-faith assumption would have been that this is a notable article, but just one that at the present time lacks a source for its notability. Instead, what we have here is a situation where the editor who proposed the AfD nomination had previously been involved in an edit war over the article, following his previous attempts to insert an uncited, POV criticism section, which he spuriously tried to legitimise by maintaining that it was as important for the pre-existing objective facts, such as dates relating to its establishment, to be cited, as it was to provide objective sources for the opinions he claimed that some un-named students held about it. This is not good faith. Lordrosemount 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wonder if you realize how accusing another of bad faith is itself a failure to assume good faith on your part? Bad faith accusations should be reserved for actual actions of real misconduct. Not just a difference of opinion about what to do, which is all that I see here. AGF is not just a stick to use against others, but a practice you should endeavor to follow yourself. In most cases, the best way to convince people that an article should be kept is not to attack the nominator, but rather to demonstrate how the subject of the article meets existing Wikipedia criteria, or how those criteria may not properly apply. And please don't waste time by accusing me of bad faith, that'd just further the problem. If you truly believe there was a problem with the actions that occurred regarding this page, I suggest you try WP:ANI or WP:RFC or WP:RFAR if you must. But I honestly believe if there is a problem with good faith here, it's at the least mutual. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but it is my belief that the editor I was referring to is guilty of real misconduct. AGF states that one should assume good faith in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, and my post there included an attempt to provide such evidence. If you disagree with me than you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I note no rebuttal in your response either to that claim, or to the rest of my argument (which, I believe, does demonstrate why the article meets the criteria). Do you, for instance, disagree that the correct response to a lack of notability-establishing sources is a request for some to be provided and a reasonable period of waiting for that to happen? Or do you think it's better, in those circumstances, to stick it straight on AfD? Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't see any real misconduct here. At worst, there's some fractious behavior, but that sort of thing is why AGF exists. I don't see any reason to refute your accusations, since you haven't provided any specific examples of inappropriate action. I'd actually say your representation of the situation is somewhat different from how I observe it, so I believe there is no actual real concern. But if you do, go to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR if you feel strongly about it. I really don't want to try to prove to you who did what, that'd be missing the point of my real concern that you see the value in assuming good faith yourself, and instead of making accusations of bad faith, you work harder to trust other users and address their concerns directly. For example, let's imagine there was a question about Skull and Bones. The way to show its notability is through providing examples like the many books and even television documentaries about the organization. It's easy to make a bad faith accusation, it's harder, but far more important to take another editor's concerns as valid. And while I see your hypothetical as inaccurate to the situation here (since there was an attempt to discuss it beforehand), I'll answer it this way: There is no possibility of a single answer to your question as to what the appropriate action is. Any action taken must be decided upon in the individual situation, which will vary highly. In some cases, a clean-up tag may be appropriate, in others, discussion on the talk page, and in some, a CSD, PROD, or AFD discussion may be appropriate. There is no single answer as to what to do, but instead, an editor must examine the situation and act appropriately depending on the circumstances. I'll give you an example. Recently, an editor nominated a page for deletion, Civil Marriage in Israel in what I consider a hasty decision. I don't consider it a bad-faith action, just a mistaken choice. I don't see any reason to punish TPH for it, I see no malice there, I just see he made a mistake which he corrected after thinking about it. Now in this case, it's not so clear that the nomination was wrong, and I wouldn't say it's a bad faith action at all. Instead, I strongly argue that the best way to handle this is not by accusations of misconduct, but acts that address the concerns such as by providing examples of third-party sources about this organization. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but it is my belief that the editor I was referring to is guilty of real misconduct. AGF states that one should assume good faith in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, and my post there included an attempt to provide such evidence. If you disagree with me than you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I note no rebuttal in your response either to that claim, or to the rest of my argument (which, I believe, does demonstrate why the article meets the criteria). Do you, for instance, disagree that the correct response to a lack of notability-establishing sources is a request for some to be provided and a reasonable period of waiting for that to happen? Or do you think it's better, in those circumstances, to stick it straight on AfD? Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wonder if you realize how accusing another of bad faith is itself a failure to assume good faith on your part? Bad faith accusations should be reserved for actual actions of real misconduct. Not just a difference of opinion about what to do, which is all that I see here. AGF is not just a stick to use against others, but a practice you should endeavor to follow yourself. In most cases, the best way to convince people that an article should be kept is not to attack the nominator, but rather to demonstrate how the subject of the article meets existing Wikipedia criteria, or how those criteria may not properly apply. And please don't waste time by accusing me of bad faith, that'd just further the problem. If you truly believe there was a problem with the actions that occurred regarding this page, I suggest you try WP:ANI or WP:RFC or WP:RFAR if you must. But I honestly believe if there is a problem with good faith here, it's at the least mutual. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep --MacRusgail 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason for making this argument? AFD is not a vote, thus raw numbers are not convincing. Instead, it is appropriate to provide a reason for your position. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is the student association of one of the so called "ancient universities". Because St Andrews is such a small town, it plays an important economic role in it. --MacRusgail 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is that it applies to the University as a whole, not necessarily to everything associated with it. How has this organization contributed to the (hopefully documented already) role that the University of St. Andrews has had in the economics of this town? Where are the sources for that assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the university as a whole does play an economic role, but then again so does the association. The student association itself is an employer, owns a good chunk of the town, and is responsible for most of its more youthful nightlife. --MacRusgail 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice assertion *BUT* where are the sources that back up this claim? You do realize that Wikipedia requires sources, not just your bare word, right? FrozenPurpleCube 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you believe the above editor's claim, or you don't. If you believe it - and as someone so keen to encourage others to assume good faith, presumably you most - then I repeat, why are you supporting the deletion of the article instead of trying to help other editors find sources that would be acceptable to you? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, there's a difference between saying "I have no basis on which to believe your claim and neither does anybody else, that's why Wikipedia has a WP:V policy" and "I believe you're outright lying in order to vandalize Wikipedia and are a bad person" . The one is a statement of expressed Wikipedia policy and a valid concern that enjoys wide support. The other is an accusation. I am making the former. Not the latter. Do you see the difference or not? I don't think anybody else would be confused, but if you'd like, you can ask elsewhere and get feedback. And why would I help you with this? Do you need instructions on how to use a search engine? Do you expect me to go look up newspaper archives? I'm sorry, but there are things I'm interested in doing and things I'm not. Now this isn't to say I wouldn't look at any sources you cared to supply and give them a fair examination, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to go do something for you when I don't feel a desire to do so. Some things I just don't think are a good use of my time. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V relates to information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now, a person could challenge anything, but in doing so they couldn't just state their unjustified disbelief - they would have to provide some reason why they believe the information is untrue (and therefore unverifiable). The claim that a students' association with a membership of over 7,000 at a time, a dedicated volunteering arm and official status in regard to town/gown relations makes contributions to the social and economic life of the town it sits in, is not likely to be challenged by a reasonable person, as it would seem to follow by necessity. Given that no basis for any such challenge has been provided by yourself or anyone else, we can only conclude that there has been no legitimate challenge and there is no prospect of one - hence WP:V does not apply in this case. Lordrosemount 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you look more fully at WP:V instead. Limiting your reading to just individually quoted selections is missing the point. Verifiability applies to almost everything, not just exceptional claims. The smallest things can turn out to be untrue, which means well, it's best to have sources for everything. This especially applies to things which are asserted for notability. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V relates to information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now, a person could challenge anything, but in doing so they couldn't just state their unjustified disbelief - they would have to provide some reason why they believe the information is untrue (and therefore unverifiable). The claim that a students' association with a membership of over 7,000 at a time, a dedicated volunteering arm and official status in regard to town/gown relations makes contributions to the social and economic life of the town it sits in, is not likely to be challenged by a reasonable person, as it would seem to follow by necessity. Given that no basis for any such challenge has been provided by yourself or anyone else, we can only conclude that there has been no legitimate challenge and there is no prospect of one - hence WP:V does not apply in this case. Lordrosemount 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, there's a difference between saying "I have no basis on which to believe your claim and neither does anybody else, that's why Wikipedia has a WP:V policy" and "I believe you're outright lying in order to vandalize Wikipedia and are a bad person" . The one is a statement of expressed Wikipedia policy and a valid concern that enjoys wide support. The other is an accusation. I am making the former. Not the latter. Do you see the difference or not? I don't think anybody else would be confused, but if you'd like, you can ask elsewhere and get feedback. And why would I help you with this? Do you need instructions on how to use a search engine? Do you expect me to go look up newspaper archives? I'm sorry, but there are things I'm interested in doing and things I'm not. Now this isn't to say I wouldn't look at any sources you cared to supply and give them a fair examination, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to go do something for you when I don't feel a desire to do so. Some things I just don't think are a good use of my time. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you believe the above editor's claim, or you don't. If you believe it - and as someone so keen to encourage others to assume good faith, presumably you most - then I repeat, why are you supporting the deletion of the article instead of trying to help other editors find sources that would be acceptable to you? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice assertion *BUT* where are the sources that back up this claim? You do realize that Wikipedia requires sources, not just your bare word, right? FrozenPurpleCube 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the university as a whole does play an economic role, but then again so does the association. The student association itself is an employer, owns a good chunk of the town, and is responsible for most of its more youthful nightlife. --MacRusgail 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is that it applies to the University as a whole, not necessarily to everything associated with it. How has this organization contributed to the (hopefully documented already) role that the University of St. Andrews has had in the economics of this town? Where are the sources for that assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is the student association of one of the so called "ancient universities". Because St Andrews is such a small town, it plays an important economic role in it. --MacRusgail 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason for making this argument? AFD is not a vote, thus raw numbers are not convincing. Instead, it is appropriate to provide a reason for your position. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete or Merge. I agree with Manticore--- the Students' Association is not relevant to the town, let alone the nation or the world, without the University and is only appropriate for mention in the context of the University. It has not made any contributions of local, let alone regional or national scale. The association plays almost no economic role in the town--- it is essentially a bar for the transient student community that lives there for six months a year. The absence of independent secondary sources to show that it has any other relevance to the world is telling. These sources should be found if the article is to stay. This is a good faith action--- it's just trying to give potential readers the appropriate view of the Association, which is important only in the context of the University. Also, listing individual Association "elected officers"--- students who meet in committee once a fortnight--- adds an element of vanity to the already un-notable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.217.151 (talk • contribs)
- Not relevant to the town? That's rubbish: the Association sends represesentatives to the Town Council, runs volunteering projects in the community and co-ordinates town/gown events - I should know, I used to do most of it. And before there's any more sanctimonious preaching about the citation of sources, I'm hoping within a few days to have a whole slew, and you can expect a new section on this very point within the next couple of days. It's not as though this article is realistically going anywhere; a child of two could figure out that there's a strong consensus to keep. Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The numerous harangues by deletion advocates alone provide almost reason enough to keep, but a student organisation about 7000 members associated with a world famous university is sufficient to indicate encyclopedic notability barring good evidence to the contrary. No evidence has been provided that this organisation is less notable than other similar student organisations, and I consider them in general to be encyclopedic topics. WP:V and WP:RS are the only concerns I normally have with this class of article, but I didn't notice any serious problems with this page. Quale 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the only reason there are 7000 members (debatable) is because all students are automatically made members on entry; the same is true of the University's debating society. However, most of the students use the place as a late-night bar and little else and don't get involved with activism or representational activity. Less than one-fifth of them vote in elections, and that number (depending on which election) can be as low as one in ten. Fewer still know what's going on. The notability test is whether the organization can be shown by secondary source articles. So far, the only notable things that have been added are critiques of the Association, and insignificant references to statutes and association rules; nothing demonstrates its wider importance to the world. The burden of proof is on the author to PROVE the Association is notable; it is not for those supporting deletion to disprove its notability. Unless notability is established it should be cut down, merged, and the original page deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.217.151 (talk • contribs) ad
- Keep per consensus. There is no burden of proof of notability. It's snowing in Scotland. Bearian 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (Fixed 2 typos.) Bearian 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a burden of proof for notability. You can argue as to whether or not it should be applied, but policies like WP:ORG do have significant support in the community.
FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the guideline at WP:ORG, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I am an attorney, and thus love to follow rules, but sometimes you have to break the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit of the law. I can not find explicitly about such a burden, unless you combine two rules -- notability and verification. Reasons for deletion include "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines", which I take to mean the former, and "attempts to find reliable sources ... which ... can be verified have failed", which I assume refers to the latter. Bearian 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. Common sense tells me every university probably has a similar organization, there's nothing particularly distinctive about this one in particular, thus there's no reason to make an exception for coverage of this one, and more of a reason to not make it. The appropriate level of coverage is in the main article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry, but the premise of that argument is diametrically opposed to the truth. You say that it would be wrong to make a 'special case' of the University of St Andrews in having an article about its Association, when almost every other university has a similar organisation associated with it. Erm, hello, Category:Students' unions. Guess what, almost every other students' association/union has an article. Why are you making a special case out of St Andrews, by arguing for the deletion of this one? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so! You are assuming from the existence of those articles that I have some feeling of acceptance for them. But the truth is I don't necessarily support any of those other universities having articles about their student associations, and besides your statement is factually untrue. There is no way almost every other university students association has an an article on it. The category you refer to has only 47 entries for English schools. How many institutes of higher education are there in England? There are certainly well more than that at List of universities in England. It's even worse for the United States, with 16 pages out of lots more. There's more colleges in most of the states than there are in that whole category. Now you might say that's because there's a lot of entries left out of the category by pure neglect. But so what? I am still not required to support those articles, and I don't. There are many of them which probably should be deleted. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress. It's a lot of work, and things often get done haphazardly. It is highly unfair of you to expect folks to nominate any and every article with the same problem, and thus I suggest you refrain from doing so. Really, nothing you're saying is new, and none of it is especially convincing in the way of an argument. If anything, it just tells me you might want to look at The arguments to avoid so as to familiarize yourself with the existing situation. FrozenPurpleCube 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay, so if (as you claimed above) these articles hadn't existed, it would have been a valid argument that St Andrews shouldn't be a special case; but as they do, it is not a valid argument to that consensus exists among the large number of editors who have contributed to these articles that they have every right to be here? Wikipedia is founded on consensus; and both this page and the category I've referred to show that the consensus is that your opinion that students' unions and associations are not valid subjects for articles, is wrong. Lordrosemount 10:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying right out, the existence of those other articles has no weight whatsoever in regards to the appropriate action to take for this article. Sorry, but they don't matter one bit. Really, stop worrying about them. WAX arguments can work, sometimes, but in this case, they're simply not going to convince me of anything. And if you want to see what consensus really means, take a look at some of the recent Harry Potter related AFDs. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you claim that not deleting this article would be an exception? And, moreover, what makes you think that I (or any of the other countless people who've argued for keep) have the slightest interest in convincing you, personally, of anything? I can assure you I'm not the least bit worried about these other articles, but I still maintain that a consensus exists among a large number of editors that STUDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOTABLE. You haven't given anyone the slightest reason to believe otherwise. Lordrosemount 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to WP:ORG, actually, as to what the exception was being asked for, not an exception among student associations. I guess you didn't realize what I was saying. And I don't see anything resembling a large number of editors, and I especially don't see a large number of editors with valid arguments having been made. You're confusing the numbers posting here with an actually relevant sampling of Wikipedia users. Sorry, but that's not the case, and more to the point, the substance of many people's arguments is lacking. Wikipedia isn't governed simply by numbers (see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY]]. You'd come across a lot better if you worried less about the numbers here, and focused more establishing the article within the existing policies and guidelines. That's the best way to get something kept. FrozenPurpleCube 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. - Yeah, you're damn right I couldn't understand what you were saying. And my comment, if you'd read it, referred to the number of editors who had edited the sum of all articles on Wikipedia about students' associations - I didn't say a word to indicate an erroneous belief that AfD discussions are democratic votes. If that many editors, acting independently, think students' associations to be worthy subjects for articles, don't you think that may be a teensy little indication that they are? Actually, probably not - I'm sure you'll come up with yet more sophistry to claim otherwise. Lordrosemount 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you didn't understand what I said, perhaps you might want to ask for a clarification? And no, I don't see where you added any kind of disclaimer that you were limiting your remark to editors of Student association pages. Is that what you meant? Well, if so, I'd point out to you that many large groups of articles get found on Wikipedia(there were many many articles deleted on radio antennas not so long ago), and as I see it, there wasn't even a real organization to these things. Just haphazard examples of individual people throwing up articles because that's what they were interested in doing. That's not a bad thing, it's what Wikipedia is about. But there's more to Wikipedia than just people deciding they care about something, which is why we have things like WP:AFD and the various policies and guidelines that exist to decide what content is encyclopedic or not. Hence, that's why it's best to make arguments based on the merits of the individual article with references to existing policy, not on things that may not mean anything other than some individuals decided to act. They may have. So what? It doesn't mean as much as you seem to think. I certainly don't place much weight on it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, if you're not trying to convince me, or anybody else, then you're missing the point of consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what possible reason could you think you, personally and you or anybody else mean the same thing? Next time, I think I'll just set the straw men up for you, to save you the bother. Lordrosemount
- And I think this demonstrates why it's important to comment on the content, not the contributor. If instead of focusing on me, you'd focused on the page itself, I feel you'd be much more likely to be persuasive. Your statement above, however, does nothing to persuade me, in fact, it tends to ruin my impression of you and make it even less likely you'll convince me of anything. I'd say it's borderline uncivil, though not quite a personal attack. You may wish to consider modifying your arguments in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what possible reason could you think you, personally and you or anybody else mean the same thing? Next time, I think I'll just set the straw men up for you, to save you the bother. Lordrosemount
- Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. - Yeah, you're damn right I couldn't understand what you were saying. And my comment, if you'd read it, referred to the number of editors who had edited the sum of all articles on Wikipedia about students' associations - I didn't say a word to indicate an erroneous belief that AfD discussions are democratic votes. If that many editors, acting independently, think students' associations to be worthy subjects for articles, don't you think that may be a teensy little indication that they are? Actually, probably not - I'm sure you'll come up with yet more sophistry to claim otherwise. Lordrosemount 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to WP:ORG, actually, as to what the exception was being asked for, not an exception among student associations. I guess you didn't realize what I was saying. And I don't see anything resembling a large number of editors, and I especially don't see a large number of editors with valid arguments having been made. You're confusing the numbers posting here with an actually relevant sampling of Wikipedia users. Sorry, but that's not the case, and more to the point, the substance of many people's arguments is lacking. Wikipedia isn't governed simply by numbers (see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY]]. You'd come across a lot better if you worried less about the numbers here, and focused more establishing the article within the existing policies and guidelines. That's the best way to get something kept. FrozenPurpleCube 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you claim that not deleting this article would be an exception? And, moreover, what makes you think that I (or any of the other countless people who've argued for keep) have the slightest interest in convincing you, personally, of anything? I can assure you I'm not the least bit worried about these other articles, but I still maintain that a consensus exists among a large number of editors that STUDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOTABLE. You haven't given anyone the slightest reason to believe otherwise. Lordrosemount 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying right out, the existence of those other articles has no weight whatsoever in regards to the appropriate action to take for this article. Sorry, but they don't matter one bit. Really, stop worrying about them. WAX arguments can work, sometimes, but in this case, they're simply not going to convince me of anything. And if you want to see what consensus really means, take a look at some of the recent Harry Potter related AFDs. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay, so if (as you claimed above) these articles hadn't existed, it would have been a valid argument that St Andrews shouldn't be a special case; but as they do, it is not a valid argument to that consensus exists among the large number of editors who have contributed to these articles that they have every right to be here? Wikipedia is founded on consensus; and both this page and the category I've referred to show that the consensus is that your opinion that students' unions and associations are not valid subjects for articles, is wrong. Lordrosemount 10:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so! You are assuming from the existence of those articles that I have some feeling of acceptance for them. But the truth is I don't necessarily support any of those other universities having articles about their student associations, and besides your statement is factually untrue. There is no way almost every other university students association has an an article on it. The category you refer to has only 47 entries for English schools. How many institutes of higher education are there in England? There are certainly well more than that at List of universities in England. It's even worse for the United States, with 16 pages out of lots more. There's more colleges in most of the states than there are in that whole category. Now you might say that's because there's a lot of entries left out of the category by pure neglect. But so what? I am still not required to support those articles, and I don't. There are many of them which probably should be deleted. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress. It's a lot of work, and things often get done haphazardly. It is highly unfair of you to expect folks to nominate any and every article with the same problem, and thus I suggest you refrain from doing so. Really, nothing you're saying is new, and none of it is especially convincing in the way of an argument. If anything, it just tells me you might want to look at The arguments to avoid so as to familiarize yourself with the existing situation. FrozenPurpleCube 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry, but the premise of that argument is diametrically opposed to the truth. You say that it would be wrong to make a 'special case' of the University of St Andrews in having an article about its Association, when almost every other university has a similar organisation associated with it. Erm, hello, Category:Students' unions. Guess what, almost every other students' association/union has an article. Why are you making a special case out of St Andrews, by arguing for the deletion of this one? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. Common sense tells me every university probably has a similar organization, there's nothing particularly distinctive about this one in particular, thus there's no reason to make an exception for coverage of this one, and more of a reason to not make it. The appropriate level of coverage is in the main article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the guideline at WP:ORG, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I am an attorney, and thus love to follow rules, but sometimes you have to break the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit of the law. I can not find explicitly about such a burden, unless you combine two rules -- notability and verification. Reasons for deletion include "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines", which I take to mean the former, and "attempts to find reliable sources ... which ... can be verified have failed", which I assume refers to the latter. Bearian 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitely. It is an interesting article and would be best not cluttering up the University's main page.--Breadandcheese 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interested in the article. Really, I don't care about it one way or the other. In fact, there are many thousands of articles the subject of which I don't care in the slightest bit about. I'm sure the same applies to you. None of that is a good argument for deletion, the same as you being interested in a subject isn't a good argument for retention. The reasons for this are complicated, but you may wish to look at WP:ATA for an examination of them, in particular the ILIKE and INTERESTING sections. The question of cluttering up the main page is somewhat more reasonable, but not if the content of this page were reduced to one or two sentences as might be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly count 'it's interesting' amongst the great Wikipedia faux pas of all time, however shall I rephrase: it's an informative article, dealing with a subject that despite what someone said above I believe is certainly notably and significant within the town of St Andrews and the University. Also, as St A's isn't in the NUS and CHESS is dying out, a burden of representation to the various government education departments often falls these days upon individual students' unions - hence giving it a wider significance. --Breadandcheese 06:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Informative is not the question, the question is where are the sources to back the claim of notability and significance within this town. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly count 'it's interesting' amongst the great Wikipedia faux pas of all time, however shall I rephrase: it's an informative article, dealing with a subject that despite what someone said above I believe is certainly notably and significant within the town of St Andrews and the University. Also, as St A's isn't in the NUS and CHESS is dying out, a burden of representation to the various government education departments often falls these days upon individual students' unions - hence giving it a wider significance. --Breadandcheese 06:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interested in the article. Really, I don't care about it one way or the other. In fact, there are many thousands of articles the subject of which I don't care in the slightest bit about. I'm sure the same applies to you. None of that is a good argument for deletion, the same as you being interested in a subject isn't a good argument for retention. The reasons for this are complicated, but you may wish to look at WP:ATA for an examination of them, in particular the ILIKE and INTERESTING sections. The question of cluttering up the main page is somewhat more reasonable, but not if the content of this page were reduced to one or two sentences as might be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, students' unions are separate from the institution and are notable; no reason for singling out St Andrews'. Timrollpickering 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Not all Student Unions are notable, but I'm satisfied that this one is. Scrub for trivia, like the nominations procedure for Honorary Life membership and the deathly-dull committee structure. — mholland (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sorry for writing so often but I have to refute the absurd arguments being made... "it's interesting," "no, seriously, it's notable." It is neither, and it falls well within the scope of the Notability guidelines and doesn't establish itself according to them. (Quality Control in Wikipedia: constant battle). I'm going to give you the guidelines, and then I'm going to give you what the Association has cited--- it's very clear that we do not have a consensus on the issue. Also, replying to the "snowball" remark, this isn't a snowball--- it's an uphill battle and it's winnable. And if Wikipedia notability guidelines are going to stand up, this and every other Student Union should be put up against the guidelines for scrutiny. Read on:
Notability requirements for organisations are as follows:
1) "An organization... is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources."...None of the secondary sources cited have had the Association as their SUBJECT-- only as a passing reference. The subject matter is related to different things entirely (e.g. kicking a newspaper out for insulting the Welsh, or Alex Salmond).
2) "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found."As above. The Association's business is not only LOCAL but deals with a sub-segment of a locality: University students in a small, nowhere Scottish town. Wider relevance to the rest of Scotland is tough--- relevance to the rest of the UK is hard to imagine, especially as all of the Association's notable members (Prince William, Alex Salmond) have graduated. For the record, try as I might I am unable to find any article on-line placing "William" and the Association together, aside of course from this Wikipedia article.
3) "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article."...this should be widely read. The Association is a segment of the University, it gets a large portion of its funding from the University and it is built on University land. It is inseparable from the wider organisation of "St Andrews University," without which it would have no relevance at all (and indeed would not exist).
In an effort to cite sources, the Association manages to establish three facts:
1) The Association was instituted in 1983 under the Constitution and Laws of the University of St Andrews Students’ Association[1].2) It comprises the Students' Representative Council (SRC), established in 1885 and legally defined under the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889[2] , and the Students' Union (which was itself a merger of the Students' Union and the Women's Union). 3) The Students' Association is registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator as charity SCO19883 [3]
None of the other material, save for criticism of the body for being ineffective and/or incompetent, establishes the group's relevance according to the notability criteria. Heraldry and the Crest might be nice, but the Association is not a notable organisation by any standard--- not like Oxford or Cambridge (debating) Unions, which deal with high rollers, big-shots and count among their alumni a great host of notable and active members.
- comment
- University students in a small, nowhere Scottish town. Wider relevance to the rest of Scotland is tough--- relevance to the rest of the UK is hard to imagine
- thankyou for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter. Oldest university in Scotland, 3rd oldest in the UK, an ancient and prestigious institution that is world renowned. The home of golf and vitally historically important to Scotland with regards to the Reformation, religion and as a seat of learning...
- especially as all of the Association's notable members (Prince William, Alex Salmond) have graduated.
- well, that tends to happen with students. They graduate. Time moves on. And sometimes later they become famous.
- The Association is a segment of the University, it gets a large portion of its funding from the University and it is built on University land. It is inseparable from the wider organisation of "St Andrews University," without which it would have no relevance at all (and indeed would not exist)
- The Association is categorically not a segment of the University. It gets a grant from the University, no reference is made in the article as to what proportion of its income this is, you therefore seem to be reading things that aren't even there. Yes, the Union is built on University land, but parts of the University are built on Union land. So what? The ownership of the land of an institution are absolutely irrelevant. No University union or organisation would exist without the fact that its alma mater also exists. What is the argument here?
- not like Oxford or Cambridge (debating) Unions, which deal with high rollers, big-shots and count among their alumni a great host of notable and active members.
- Seems to me like all of their notable members have graduated... You can't use your agrument one way and then expect it not to work the other.
- Emoscopes Talk 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment despite the irrelevancy of the Union and its non notability in the press, as claimed above, it is worth demonstrating that a large number of world media publications have saw fit to consult the Association President on a range of issues over the past 6 or 7 years ( http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=St+Andrews+Students%27+Association&um=1&sa=N&start=10 ) - I think I count all of the predidents in there in fact. The press has clearly sought the views of the Association (speaking for the student body that elected it as a whole), rather than directly that that of the University. Emoscopes Talk 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One-line quick quotes are not a good way to demonstrate notability. All it means is that they needed text to fill something. Besides, your search includes many things that aren't relevant to the association at all. To be honest, the only quotes from the association were to do with Prince William's Enrollment. Not very convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But surely that line contradicts itself. WP:N suggests that if a work warrants the production of a news story, then it passes. As sources have been provided or can easily be found, and the organisation has been referred to in newsbites, WP:N should be satisfied. The fact that Mr. Manticore and several unregistered users need to contribute a rebuttal to every comment indicates at least a too involved, unobjective stance, and at the most, who knows. M0RHI | Talk to me 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the contributor isn't usually helpful. Some people like to discuss things. Have any of my comments been rude or uncivil? I don't feel they have, so I enjoin you to assume good faith, and instead of making comments about me, you concentrate on the issue at hand, which is the article itself. It would be more much effective an argument. I see these statements about people all the time. Usually, it's frivolous. In response to your other statement, the problem is, this association has not warranted the production of a news story. Take the story about Prince William. It's about him. Possibly about the college. Not about the association, not even Prince William's activity within it. This: [1] is an example of an article about an organization. Try finding something like that, instead of fretting over people's non-offensive actions. It'd be much much effective. Or are you going to make a claim that I, or somebody else has made a personal attack or been uncivil? If so, please point me to what it is with a diff. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, but then, assuming my reply was in good faith, you wouldn't even begin to assume so ;). M0RHI | Talk to me 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to make comments about me, and place a negative weight upon them, then you should expect a response. Trying to make counter-accusations of not assuming good faith on my part because of that only demonstrates the problem in making comments on the individuals involved. I hope that you consider the value of sticking to the actual content versus commenting on the contributor and try to put it more into practice. It would be much more effective and less disruptive. But if you don't believe me, perhaps you might want to ask on WP:WQA for an examination of your statements? FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't accusing you, but I'm of the belief that once voting on an AfD, to leave it at that. Anything more, in my opinion, means you become too involved in the argument itself and "can't see the trees for the wood". Admins know all the arguments to avoid and will see through them. But hey, that's only my opinion. M0RHI | Talk to me 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to make comments about me, and place a negative weight upon them, then you should expect a response. Trying to make counter-accusations of not assuming good faith on my part because of that only demonstrates the problem in making comments on the individuals involved. I hope that you consider the value of sticking to the actual content versus commenting on the contributor and try to put it more into practice. It would be much more effective and less disruptive. But if you don't believe me, perhaps you might want to ask on WP:WQA for an examination of your statements? FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, but then, assuming my reply was in good faith, you wouldn't even begin to assume so ;). M0RHI | Talk to me 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the contributor isn't usually helpful. Some people like to discuss things. Have any of my comments been rude or uncivil? I don't feel they have, so I enjoin you to assume good faith, and instead of making comments about me, you concentrate on the issue at hand, which is the article itself. It would be more much effective an argument. I see these statements about people all the time. Usually, it's frivolous. In response to your other statement, the problem is, this association has not warranted the production of a news story. Take the story about Prince William. It's about him. Possibly about the college. Not about the association, not even Prince William's activity within it. This: [1] is an example of an article about an organization. Try finding something like that, instead of fretting over people's non-offensive actions. It'd be much much effective. Or are you going to make a claim that I, or somebody else has made a personal attack or been uncivil? If so, please point me to what it is with a diff. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But surely that line contradicts itself. WP:N suggests that if a work warrants the production of a news story, then it passes. As sources have been provided or can easily be found, and the organisation has been referred to in newsbites, WP:N should be satisfied. The fact that Mr. Manticore and several unregistered users need to contribute a rebuttal to every comment indicates at least a too involved, unobjective stance, and at the most, who knows. M0RHI | Talk to me 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One-line quick quotes are not a good way to demonstrate notability. All it means is that they needed text to fill something. Besides, your search includes many things that aren't relevant to the association at all. To be honest, the only quotes from the association were to do with Prince William's Enrollment. Not very convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Alex Salmond Point is not well explained in the article but the election for president remains the only election that Mr Salmond has been personally defeated in.
- That doesn't make the Association relevant: the place for that bit of information is in the article about Alex Salmond. 86.135.217.151 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)observer[reply]
- Keep, merg or improve Unfortunately it is difficult for anybody else to get hold of information for some thing as local as this but lots of student union branches have articles. I would like to see more references and more citation on the page. There must be documentation about this student union branch and its activities some where in the area. At the end of the day there is only one student union, the National Union of Students but the individual activities and history of one is interesting for large unversities and ones in London with good access to demonstrations Delighted eyes 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - St Andrews is not a member of the NUS. M0RHI | Talk to me 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- which is really case-in-point. It's like one of six or so that isn't, isn't it? Novium 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - St Andrews is not a member of the NUS. M0RHI | Talk to me 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a new section on the activities of the Association, which should hopefully address some of the concerns that have been raised about notability and citations per policy; its contents show that the activities of the Association have relevance beyond the immediate student community, and are sourced to a popular and reputable local community magazine which meets Wikipedia's requirements surrounding editorial oversight, etc. Lordrosemount 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and speedy close - My own research shows that there are a significant number of reliable sources from which to write an article on this topic. The topic meets WP:N and the article can meet Wikipedia article standards policies. As for the nomination, the answer is WP:SOFIXIT. AfD is not the place to resolve such content disputes. Please try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Jreferee (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchPage 3Wikipedia:Featured picturesHouse of the DragonUEFA Euro 2024Bryson DeChambeauJuneteenthInside Out 2Eid al-AdhaCleopatraDeaths in 2024Merrily We Roll Along (musical)Jonathan GroffJude Bellingham.xxx77th Tony AwardsBridgertonGary PlauchéKylian MbappéDaniel RadcliffeUEFA European Championship2024 ICC Men's T20 World CupUnit 731The Boys (TV series)Rory McIlroyN'Golo KantéUEFA Euro 2020YouTubeRomelu LukakuOpinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general electionThe Boys season 4Romania national football teamNicola CoughlanStereophonic (play)Gene WilderErin DarkeAntoine GriezmannProject 2025