Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Student Cooperative


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 02:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Berkeley Student Cooperative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to University of California, Berkeley. Seems worthy of a short mention on that page, although not the lengthy exposition on this one. Neutralitytalk 21:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching for sources under the group's previous name of "University Students' Cooperative Association" shows that there has been coverage in reliable sources going back many years. This cooperative is 83 years old and owns facilities housing well ovef 1000 students. Disclosure: My father-in-law lived in their facilities while a Berkeley student in the 1930s, and I have been familiar with the group for decades. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of 16 articles published in the San Francisco Chronicle in the past 20 years that mention the co-op. Google Books also yields lots of coverage. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are indeed lots of interesting mentions in Google books: clearly a historic organization. However the mentions all seem to be in passing. The Bay area News coverage is okay, but of course we have WP:AUD to consider. This collective seems to be too historically notable for a mere redirect. I'm going to go with weak keep, at least for now, even though I certainly agree that the article as it exists now is overly detailed and seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course another option would be to merge to University of California, Berkeley student housing, broadening the scope there to include off-campus housing, but that article is also overly detailed, and has been tagged as such. Definitely some editorial and cleanup issues on both these articles, if this one is indeed kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: All of the keep rationale seems contested by the passing mentions. Relisting for clearer consensus -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:DINC. Clearly the article needs some TLC, but comments above, as well as coverage in sources such as     demonstrate the topic's notability, in my opinion. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability", not "cleanup". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my !vote to weak delete, because I don't like the way this Afd is trending. Opposers are making it sound like this is some kind of slamdunk -- but I looked at all those linked Google books hits and they're all passing mentions. The nominator makes a perfectly valid case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passing mentions in books should be given more weight than passing internet coverage. There is a high possibility of other print sources existing, considering this organization has been around for almost 100 years.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per User:Neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.Miles925 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The first source I provided is as far from a "passing mention" as possible. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 20:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability": just a suggestion, Andy, but in future you should use ACTUAL rationales for your nominations. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual deletion rationale I gave was "no evidence of notability". HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 8 September 2016 (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.