Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown University traditions


 * 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 redirect to Brown University. In theory a perfectly reasonable content fork (it's been pointed out that a wholesale merge of this would be vastly too large for the parent article) consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient independent, reliable-source coverage to warrant most of the content here. There is no consensus to particularly delete this content in its entirety - the likely way forward is to incorporate the few reliably sourced parts of this into the parent article. For these purposes, the history of the article has been left intact for merging purposes. ~ mazca  talk 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Brown University traditions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing on this list of traditions gives any sense of notability to the topic as a stand-alone article, and it is all extremely poorly referenced as almost all references given are primary. Vanstrat ((🗼)) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as child of Brown University parent article. In that sense, it's like a WP:CSC, which has grown too large for the parent, and where the according to the examples given, the specific set being listed does not appear to require notability "for the set". At least two of these appear to have mention in independent sources. Some of the entries I can see being scrapped as unencyclopediac/transient local interest/in-joke things. Note that Category:Traditions by university or college in the United States has about 25 "[School name] traditions" style articles, which (by spot-check) do not have stated or cited notability for the specific subtopic of "traditions of the school". I'll ping WP:COLLEGE as it's of general relevance. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom: From what I see, only one third party source is present in the article, regarding their naked parties. All the other topics on the page are either unsourced or only primary sources can be found. While the set may not need to be notable as a whole, I would expect, for this type of article, that there would be available third party sources for at least a few more of the individual topics showing notability (or that they even exist at all) to give justification for there to be an entire stand-alone article on their traditions. Regarding the category, for other universities that also have traditions pages with little encyclopedic content, they should also be considered for merge or deletion. Vanstrat ((🗼)) 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Brown University - probably better off as a section instead of an independent article. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Brown University  - agree with User: Kirbanzo. Vorbee (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment/Query - I don't think a merge is wise, since it either is too big and disruptive violating WP:UNDUE or has to lose content. However, if you guys can help me out - is Brown University 2012 They were once a publisher, specifically for print guides on colleges, but I've no idea if there was any quality congtrol. If it is reliable, then it would back up some traditions. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with regarding merging.. there's a lot in this article if it were all to be merged. The reason I nominated it for deletion instead is because, when looking to see what material there is that could be merged, I really can't find anything that has reliable sources with it to back up the statements. If there was material in the article that had reliable sources then that material could be merged, and if the article had so much that keeping all of it upon merging would violate WP:UNDUE then the article should be kept and I would not have nominated it. Regarding the source provided, looking at it and comparing it to WP:SOURCE, books should be published by "respected publishing houses". I'm admittedly not an expert in publishing houses, but normally College Prowler doesn't seem like it'd be on the top of my list for fact checking and evidence. Curious as to what other wikipedians think... - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives - one appreciable comment in favour, others merely using, so I've dropped it as a specific request for a few more opinions on College Prowler/Niche to see if we can get a rough and ready consensus on the source.Nosebagbear (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the source, even if it's deemed reliable at WP:RSN... I don't think there's enough available sourced content on the subject matter to warrant this separate page. The contents of the College Prowler source combined with the content from the one other reliable source present can be easily summarized on the main Brown University page without violating WP:UNDUE. For example, the Van Wickle Gates already have an entire article of their own, and there's already a Student life section on the page containing a Spring weekend subsection. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Brown University, unless anyone can identify any independently-sourced encyclopaedic content at all in the page (I can't), in which case some of that could be merged with due regard for WP:WEIGHT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (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.