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 Delete. Fram (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of Arizona State University[edit]

Associated Students of Arizona State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is used as a webhost for this organization, replete with list of candidates for the student government. No sources for notability are in the article. Prod tag removed. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A student union ought to be the topic of lots of coverage. Most student unions take public positions on issues such as tuition fees, university funding and government loans and bursaries for students. It shouldn't require too much digging to find coverage of this student union in one or more Arizona newspapers. And I disagree with the suggestion that "Wikipedia is used as a webhost for this organization" -- like most student unions, this one already has its own web site. --Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite others to look at the article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is just not notable; should have been speedied as an A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prod tagged a bunch, got deprodded. Can speedy tags still be applied? Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - nope; removal of a prod tag, even if unexplained in the edit summary, is a tacit assertion that the prod is incorrect. You have to go to AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These articles have most likely been deprodded because there is rational support for the notability of these groups as the one of the main divisions of a university. If there's spam it can be removed, just been deprodded--just as I've just now removed the stuff about the student elections. Wedon't need to bring an article up for deletion in order to improve it. DGG (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one were to keep removing stuff that was non-encyclopedic, we would have something so short it could be merged to the university's article. What information do you see as notable? Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page creator here -- I created this article to move the content off Arizona State University due to constant edit wars. The article does not establish notability as is, but it could if properly expanded. I lean toward keeping the article with the stub and expand tags on it. I worry that if it is re-merged it will lead to more content that is too detailed and non-notable for the main ASU article. -Nick^talk 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and thus spam should be removed, but there's lots of time for article improvement. GreenJoe 14:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and their 'public positions' are related directly to university issues. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any reliable independent secondary source. (I reserve the right to change my mind if a reliable independent secondary source is identified.) Chuck (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge to Main Article article fatally not notable (subject is inherently local in nature, contains no assertion of notability) and has no WP:Reliable Sources, thus any material in article will be WP:Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. FCYTravis (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.

"Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure) --RedShiftPA (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• People are seriously going to make a WikiProject for student unions? And they want to be ceded "inherent notability" so that we can have thousands of pages with lists of ambitious polisci majors? The topic of student unions itself could barely support more than two articles. They have had very limited historical impact. Search for books on them; hardly anything. Search in regular newspapers, and all you get is the occasional scandal. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't paper. GreenJoe 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Associated Students of Arizona State University was viewed only 242 times in February, whereas Arizona State University was viewed 21,370 times that same month. That's a ratio of 88:1. This means that, even given that most people don't read all of the article, far more people would read about the ASASU on the ASU page than they do currently. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was leaning to a merger before I read the article. Totally and completely fails WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Another Comment. If this article is to be merged with the Arizona State University article, then some strict guidelines need to be set for what is notable enough to be included. At one point, the ASASU article was over 30K. We don't need any more than a paragraph about the student government (and believe me, student government is barely notable as it is within the context of the university--less than 8% of undergrads even bother to vote in elections). I reiterate why I created (but never again edited) the ASASU page--there are ASASU members who are overly invested in their organization, and they were constantly trying to add esoteric and ephemeral information to the ASU page. I want to keep their drama off the main ASU page. As such, I worry that if the decision is to delete or merge the article, it will just move all of this junk to the ASU article. Because of that possibility, and the "Wikipedia is not paper" principle, I would lean toward keeping the page. -Nick^talk 05:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as with other organisations, student organisations need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's clear that this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations—Noetic Sage 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.