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. Discussion shows that at this time, there is no consensus for deleting oer merging the info on this student union. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bradford Union[edit]

University of Bradford Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Since the last AfD (the result of which was redirect to University of Bradford), the page has been recreated. However, in my opinion, it still fails WP:N. Take a look at this diff, showing the difference between the start of the last AfD discussion and now. In terms of external sources: a few have been added to the campaigns section, but I don't think they're specific to this union, and as such don't aid the notability of this article. Other than that, one BBC reference has been added. All other references added point to www.brad.ac.uk, the University's own website, i.e. not exactly an independant source. For this reason, I feel that this article still lacks notability (and, as a side, reads like an advertisement), and as such should be deleted. _TheIslander 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The union is independent of the university (that's rather the point) the union cannot directly influence what the university puts out. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, that's true of any students' union. However, in terms of notability and being verifiable, I really don't think that the University associated with a particular students' union is remotely independant enough - just one example springs to mind: the university will be using the union in all sorts of promotional material to attract students, thus it is in the university's interest to place the union in a good light, thus it has a biased slant. _TheIslander 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not as a source of notability, that wasn't my point, it was that they are to separate institutions with a close relationship but not affiliated to each other. Using it as a primary, but reliable source of facts is reasonable, for example stating that RamAir broadcast on FM. As you say material may be promotional in tone, but the facts are still correct (it would fall under advertising standards if they lied) --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added some sourcing.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been revised with the wider union's activities included, it is a unique union in the UK with its varying activities and left wing politics. It is also only one of the few that have no president. The article does still lack some sources but they are being added and the article improved. A lot of good information is included in this article and it should be tagged for improvement not deletion as the article in itself it worthy of an entry. If the article was merged back in to the University article it would take up too higher proportion of the article as an independent institution. --Lloyd rm (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 22:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Comment This is why (as last time I pointed out that it is one of very few (not sure if its unique) that do not have a union president, hence making it unusual, and to a lesser extent they way sports are run. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep until we actually have a policy. My view is that they are are notable if from a major university. The details of how they are run are not significant. lets get consensus in a proper way with broad participation. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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