Deletion of Southampton University Students' Union

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I love it when people respond to my thread, yet they don't read my thread before posting.  It is truly remarkable.  Sce1313, I don't know who you are, but taking consideration of the many sock puppets surrounding this AfD, I cannot assume good faith and consider you a unique user until proven otherwise.  Sock puppet or not, you still are arguing over policy, something I just mentioned not to do...because it doesn't change the outcome of the AfD.  Just focus on getting more notable sources to counter the  part of the argument and let the closing admin decide.  OK?  I'm tired of hearing the same reiterations over and over again (it's almost like the Wikipedia users who want to keep this article are thinking in a collective...perhaps SUSU has a Borg hive?... which brings me to the conclusion that many of the voters who have nominated to keep is actually the same person) '''Note to the closing admin''' I strongly suggest you check the IP logs, etc to authenticate the voters on this AfD in particular to double-check the use of sock puppets.  Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Publications from the university itself would definitely not count as independant information, for one main reason: In trying to attract prospective students to the university, the university is hardly going to be objective about it's union - it's going to make it sound as good as it can. You're quite right  that technically and legally they're (on the whole) separate entities entirely, but in this case there's a large |conflict of interest, so for all intents and purposes here they're the same institution. I would personally disagree that they're notable for being part of a large and recognised university. For a start, I'm a part of a large and recognised university, but I'm certainly not notable :P. Also, all (I think) universities in the UK have SUs, but they're all much of a muchness. There's the odd one here or there that's organised in a particularly unique way, or has something notable about it, but in the majority of cases (like this one), there's no particular factor that makes it any more notable than any other union, or, for that matter any different from any other union
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Given the policy on deletion, rightly or wrongly, suggests that all UK student unions should be deleted the discussion is therefore on whether Southampton is notable enough to be saved. I note that Oxford University Students' Union (OUSU) is not proposed for deletion, despite being smaller, younger and far less active in the lives of Oxford Students than Southampton (SUSU). (note that comments above have confused OUSU with the famous, older, and more significant Oxford Union - the debating society). So what are the criteria for escaping deletion? It isn't based on age as Southampton predates OUSU by over half a century. It certainly isn't based on size, either, as OUSU is far smaller than SUSU, in turnover, staff, involvement in funding student activities and so on. Looking at the OUSU article, it contains a total of two (minimal) references, and yet is surviving the chop? Looking at another Union, Nottingham Union, a comparable Union at a comparable University also seems to have survived the chop, despite a minimal number of references in their article. Almost every Union is notable in some way. In the case of Southampton, they still stand out as the biggest English University to NOT be a member of the NUS (National Union of Students). That suggests a notability (notoriety???) that makes it worthy of a separate wikipedia page. In this regard it would be interesting to see this point developed more in the article. Finally, I don't get the impression that the decision for proposal for deletion was a very objective one, certainly as no criteria seems to have been presented for discussion. It seems to be down to the less-than-objective criteria applied by TheIslander: "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 ." I say keep this article, but improve it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Per nomination and . The article fails to establish any sort of notability and I don't believe this notability will ever exist. Student unions are not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)