Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Missouri

:{{la|Associated Students of the University of Missouri}} ([{{fullurl:Associated Students of the University of Missouri|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Missouri}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment - an inaccurate statement; absolutely no basis for claiming inherent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Not inherently notable, but [http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200502/0218local1.html some] reliable sources do exist that should be cited. This org is not local in scope, and instead legislates on a state level.—Noetic Sage 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment - they do not legislate at all. This is a passing mention where the body is quoted as commenting on someone else's legislation. What is needed is a substantial source on the body as an entity and none have been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - only trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, local. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not local. The ASUM keeps a representative at the state's dept of education. This is unique and has been picked up on by several newspapers nationally: [http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2002/02/21/News/Sg.Forms.Student.Regent.Task.Force-503721.shtml] [http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Jul/20070718News002.asp] [http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/02/06/asum-sets-priorities-legislative-session/] [http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Feb/20080217Feat004.asp] [http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2008/3/18/students-lobby-washington/] [http://media.www.unews.com/media/storage/paper274/news/2008/02/18/News/Missouri.College.Students.Write.Bill.To.Affect.Textbook.Pricing-3217135.shtml] [http://media.www.kansascityaurora.com/media/storage/paper855/news/2006/04/25/News/As.Council.Officer.Elections.Today-1876387.shtml]. The ASUM is also mentioned in a published paper regarding the history of the Missouri Library system [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED239622&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED239622]. Do I really need more?
• Yes, you need to not misrepresent a bunch of Missouri papers as national. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• One of them is from Texas. And newspapers all across Missouri covering it are good enough anyway. There's a large difference between being local and being state-wide. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a suitable place for merging aditional material, though the present content is not vvery etensive. Sources seem to be present. DGG (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

: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.