Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Washington Alumni 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 no consensus. I don't think we agree on the standards for these Alumni Associations. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Alumni Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Prod removed with no improvement or justification. All universities have alumni associations and there is no indication of special coverage of this one. TM 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The last statement by the nom. is not a legitimate reason to remove the article; university associations don't require uniqueness or "special coverage" in order to satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirements. In this sense they are much like college football teams. Failing WP:GNG is another matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps special coverage is the incorrect term. I mean coverage by standard local newspaper stories and self published sources.--TM 23:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— Dozens of university alumni associations have pages on Wikipedia. This is the only one that's been flagged for deletion. The UW Alumni Association is the oldest of its kind on the West Coast, and is affiliated with a major research university. User:gmfland 29 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, many alumni associations have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UConn Alumni Association, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn Alumni Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Exes as but a few examples. Besides other stuff exists, it is affiliated with something notable, it is old are not reasons to keep an article. gmfland, I noticed that the UW alumni association is the only article you have edited; I suggest you look more into the guidelines before arguing for or against inclusion.--TM 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we remove the text that is only supported by primary sources, then not much is left. Does not warrant a separate article. Why not merge it into a section in the University of Washington article? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-commercial academic entity that publishes a magazine with a circulation of 200,000, give or take. So the sources are primary, verifiability is no issue here. Carrite (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying that Columns, the alumni magazine, should count towards GNG? It is definitively not independent of the university or the alumni association. Where are the in-depth independent sources needed to keep it?--TM 12:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that after being held over TWICE, I'm not seeing a lot a fury in favor of deletion of this piece about an Alumni Association on the basis of narrow interpretation of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, that the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it, that as publisher of a large circulation glossy magazine there is a likelihood of interest on the part of Wikipedia readers, that there is no question about the veracity of the basic content of this article, and that it should be therefore kept under the Wikipedia policy of WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAR as a deletion argument? That's weak, man. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main university article: Not independently notable of the university itself. To say that it has circulation of 200,000 merely says that there are 200,000 people affiliated with the school. Alumni rags are automatically sent out to all alumni, faculty, and parents of current students. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tough call, but I think overall it is a soft keep. If it was a magazine with a circulation of 200,000 it would get kept. I also don't fancy the house keeping of deleting all the other alumni association entries if it is deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every university's alumni association sends out tens if not hundreds of thousands of "magazines" unsolicited as a fundraiser. Is junkmail really an argument for keeping the article? What do you mean in your second sentence? Many alumni association articles have been deleted and I am sure Auburn's association sends out tons of junk mail as well.--TM 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim to two paras and a link to their home page and merge to Category:University of Washington alumni. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (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.