Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMUnion

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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMUnion

Article asserts no notability whatsoever, though external links to independant sources. What makes this SU different from any other? Nothing, as far as I can see, thus it fails WP:N. Also reads like an advertisement. _TheIslander 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, non-notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It has been discussed many times before on many other student union talk pages and deletion discussions. The question asked above is what makes this SU different from any other? Well just to take one example, MMUnion's sovereign body is its student council, whereas just down the road at UMSU it is general meetings. MMUnion has the third largest membership of English student unions. This isn't a discussion about MMUnion it's a discussion about all students' unions, one that we shouldn't be having here! Andy Hartley (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that this user states on his userpage "I am a Computer Science undergraduate student at Manchester Metropolitan University and am very involved in the Students' Union.", thus there are potential WP:COI issues. _TheIslander 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should also be noted that all my edits to the MMUnion article comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy! Andy Hartley (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main student organisation at a major univeristy. some over-specific content, like list of officiers--we usually just list the president. I have removed the others. DGG (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG due to not using independent secondary sources, and I'm not sure that could ever happen. —Noetic Sage 02:48, 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) 03:01, 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.