Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal dining


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cal dining
As a rule, I don't think information about dining conditions or arrangements at any particular university are at all notable, and this article certainly doesn't assert notability in any way. Also, it's most likely original research, and it is certainly entirely unsourced. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on the Nomination The article is now completely sourced and very different than the original one that was read at the time of the nomination. Please do take the time to actually read the article itself. It can be found at the link above. Presidank 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into University of California, Berkeley; there is some good info here, and it is probably only unsourced since it is a firsthand account; thus, it is an issue of just pestering the person to cite it as such Where 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep "As a rule" something based upon your own opinions does not make that thing a rule. Also this article was just created and I have not had to the time to link the proper citations. Please be patient.
 * In addition, on the note of notability, there is already an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley, why should there not be an article on its vast and multifaceted dining facilties as well? This article is still a stub and I am sorry that I forgot to note it as such.
 * Please be patient as I also have other things I am currently working on, but I will make every effort to expand this stub to a detailed and well citied article. - Presidank 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per User:Where. Sounds a bit crufty to me. Morgan Wick 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done my best for now to update and cite the article, more will follow soon. Please reconsider based on new version of article. Thanks. - Presidank 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I reread it, and I don't think that changes my opinion on the matter. It's a well-written and informative article, don't get me wrong, I just don't think the subject matter is encyclopedic, unless this is something that university dining facilities are modeled after the world over or something. It's just where people eat. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, and I don't think it meets WP:CORP, either. I realize that the housing facilities have their own article as well, but I'm thinking of AfD'ing that one, too, pretty much for the same reasons I AfD'd this one (although I think that a long-standing living arrangement that stretches back fifty years is inherently a little more notable than dining arrangements). -- Captain Disdain 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not just an article on a place where people go to eat. This is an article about an organization which runs the dining facilities at UC Berkeley. They are a legitimate business that provides catering services to people outside of the UC as well. Also there has been press coverage about this company, which has been around just as long as the housing facilites, in fact they are under the same umbrella group, qualifying it for notability under WP:CORP. The exact lines read:
 * A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
 * The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies.
 * The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.


 * Clearly the company meets one of these. Presidank 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have two tiny little problem there: 1) Cal Dining is NOT a corporation, a company, or the least bit divisible from UC Berkeley; 2) You've copied and pasted passages from WP:CORP but haven't made the least attempt to connect them to the subject of this article, or explain how they apply, other than the hadwaving "clearly they apply". No, it's not clear. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as campus-cruft. As a rule, I pay no attention to arguments relying upon the nitpicking of the wording of nominations, as opposed to, say, discussing the actual value or potential of an article. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on Notability of Article Non-notable? Has anyone even looked at the article? Cal Dining created the first certified organic residential dining salad bar in the nation, paving the way for sustainability and setting the standard by which other campuses are soon to follow. How is that not as notable as something like an aritcle on a fictional World of Warcraft zone or something of the sort? Forgive me if I sound a bit annoyed at this judgment, but I have put effort into citing sources and writting the article within WP:NPOV. How can there be an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley and not one on its dining facilities? Please actually take the time to look over the article as it is thus far and take time to read the news sources.
 * Campus cruft? If this article is crufty, than I would have to say the same argument applies to articles pertaining to other esoteric communities such as the Starcraft and Warcraft universes. Why are there so many articles allowed for non-existant locations, but there cannot even be an article on an organization that actually exists in real life?
 * Please do comment, all input is apperciated. - Presidank 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a rule, I also pay no attention to arguments relying upon the hackneyed formula, "If [unimportant subject but utterly unrelated topic] has an article, so should [my unimportant subject]". We're not discussing other, unrelated articles, we're discussing this one.


 * The number of sources you use or the amount of work you do on an article is immaterial if the topic isn't worth a separate article to begin with. This level of detail is pointlessly trivial, and if incoming UC students need this level of information, that's the rightful province of the UC Campus Housing Office and their webpage. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that this can potentially be very helpful for new UC Berkeley students. First of all, it is a good introduction to what Cal Berkeley represents. For example, potential students can see that our dining facilities serve only organic food. This reflects not only our emphasis on personal health, but also of the well-being of the environment and farmers. There are also many places to eat on campus that many students don't know about. For example, students most commonly eat at the dining halls or the Golden Bear Cafe, but there are other on campus locations such as Ramona's or Pat Brown's Grill that provide food. I have met many students that have never been to these locations and didn't even know about them. All in all, I believe that this article can be very useful for not only new/enrolled students to see what Berkeley has to offer, but offer an unbiased (something not written by the University) opinion. Also, it can be linked to from the Berkeley main site in order to show, more in-depth, the great facilities that are offered at this university other than the best education in the world. PavementIstRad 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edits
 * User's only edits are to this article.


 * Keep As a student of UC Berkeley, I can vouch that this article is very accurate. It would be very helpful to incoming freshmen, especially if it was linked to from the UC Berkeley page. msodrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.16.91 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment by an IP, of which the user doesn't even have any edit history.


 * Keep This article is not only notable but provides valuable information. I found that this article partained to my own school and my own dining experiences and not just Cal dining alone. I was able to compare my experience with campus dining to the one offered on this campus. I feel this article embodies the very purpose of this page by illuminating a different perspective. Dangerkitten 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only edit.


 * Delete Put it into an article about UC. User's comming to say 'keep' are probably all students.  If it can't provide encyclopedia to anyone but new students, why would it be in an encyclopedia?  It sounds like something that should go on fliers around campus.  Its not the content of the article, its the subject at hand.  Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh and if I ever get the proper time, those World of warcraft articles will end up under the AfD magnifying glass. There's way too much misc data on video games and every minute detail of a TV show on wikipedia, but that's because there's an overwhelming number of editors who keep editing it.  Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted, and as a rule, I pay no attention to people that repeat their arguments. This article is of much importance, not only because it describes the possible dining situations at UC Berkeley, but also Cal Dining's contributions for the community.


 * Smaller locations are noted alongside the well-known dining halls, providing awareness of the possible eating options for this international school (information which I propose to be expanded). An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley.  Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices.  The article's inclusion of these efforts enlightens others on what can be done and serves as a model for any other similar facilities.


 * Incoming UC students will undoubtedly find this information helpful, as well as tourists, parents, professors, international dignitaries, and the like. Information about Cal Dining serves a world-wide audience and an article is very much needed to carry this information to readers.


 * The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme.  It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles.  Apook 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to his user page and this AfD.


 *  The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted Ah, that old stand-by, the unilateral declaration of victory. Uh, no.
 * An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley. That's what those nice maps around campus are for. That what this nice website -- http://caldining.berkeley.edu/ -- is for. That's what turning to your hosts, fellow students, or someone walking by and saying, "Say, where can I get a bagel around here?" is for. Wikipedia? Not so much.
 *  Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices. Dude, Cal Dining isn't unique in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique in Berkeley in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique among schools in Berkeley in that regard (just ask Alice Waters).
 *  The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." More irrelevancies -- I haven't brought any of those things up. When it comes to dishonesty, for example, I tend to think of things like sockpuppetry, when one person creates multiple accounts to give the illusion of mass support -- accounts that invariably have only a few edits and identical prose/rhetorical styles. When it comes to fanaticism, I tend to think of editors tendentiously wikilawyering, pushing for views or opinions that extremely narrow or of interest only to a tiny minority. When it comes to incompetence, I think of those that try all of the above despite that fact it's been tried -- many times daily, it seems -- with limited success. But I didn't bring them up, and surely none of those things apply here?
 *  This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme. Well, at least it's not obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple -- qualities just as applicable to the actual issue at hand; that is, whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia in the first place.
 * It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles. I'm not sure why you have difficulty imagining what people have told you directly, but we all have our crosses to bear, I guess.
 * If you want to contribute, contribute where Wikipedia is lacking, not what it doesn't need more of. UC Berkeley has one of the largest academic libraries in the United States, as I recall: use that to fill in the gaps in WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: campus cruft accurately and succinctly describes the problems with this article. --Hetar 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hetar, your comment provides no arguments and mocks my sincerity. Refute my evidence for its notability and your post will finally be respected.  What is your definition of cruft?  To start, I suggest you re-examine your World of Warcraft articles.  Kevin_b_er might help you as well. Apook 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that I and other users need to re-examine "our" WoW articles is nothing more than a personal attack. Please comment on the content of this article, and not on my or other users' associations or interests. For more information on the word cruft, please see WP:CRUFT. --Hetar 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hetar I think you missed the point of Apook's message entirely, his main point was not to attack your WoW articles, I myself play WoW. I beleive the point he was trying to make is to bring some sort of actual argument that refutes his notability statment, rather than just write everything off as cruft and dance around his argument by picking at things on the sidebar. Presidank 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is already stuff on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there is not an argument for adding more stuff that probably shouldn't be there. Whether there are ten or twenty or twenty thousand worthless WoW articles is immaterial and bringing it up in this discussion does not in any way establish notability for this article. -- Captain Disdain 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This debate isn't about the accuracy of the article -- even if it were inaccurate, the task at hand would be copyediting, not deletion. I do question, however, the notability of this subject -- it reads like a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. This content might be more welcome at Wikitravel, but for the time being, I'm not entirely convinced of its relevance to an encyclopedia. That said, I'm undecided as of yet. Is there a precedent, here, or is this new ground? Luna Santin 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley, and presumably available to them elsewhere. This is not an encylclopedic subject. Robin Johnson 10:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i currently reside outside of UC berkeley and i found interest in this article and this information is not available to me else where 67.119.124.137 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm Cal grad (Go Bears!) and even WORKED for Cal Dining (washing dishes at the dining room at the Unit 1 or Unit 3 dorms (I could never tell the goddamned things apart), and I find not only no interest, I find no REASON for this article to be here. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Hetar, I did not intend to personally attack you. I hope you can accept my apology if you feel that way.


 * The debate about cruft is clearly a subjective one. My questioning of your World of Warcraft articles brings to light what you think cruft is.  If you feel WoW articles are not cruft but this Cal Dining one is, please argue why.  This current discussion pertains to the Cal Dining article only, but I believe that if anyone's definition of cruft is biased, his or her crufty argument against the article should be disregarded.


 * I followed your WP:CRUFT link, and it states that fancruft "can be a contributing factor in [an article's] deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." This brings to me wonder why we are even debating this point.  It also states that "Non-canon fanfiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopaedic."  To me, articles for WoW are certainly fanfiction, and I feel that your arguments against this article are hypocritical.  Again, this is not an attack against you but against your minimalist arguments.


 * The question now is whether this article is an encyclopaedic subject. One previous post feels that this argument reads like a travel guide, but I disagree.  Following the "Wikipedia is not" link provided in that post, it states that "An article on Paris should mention landmarks."  Although a dining hall at Cal certainly does not compare to Paris' Eiffel Tower, the dining program is an intricate and important part of any post-secondary school.  In a liberal sense, the article discusses some of the landmarks at Cal.  There has been a precedent set by the article on Cal student housing, as well as the Virginia Tech article, which includes information on its dining halls.


 * I strongly disagree with the most recent post, which argues that the article is of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley. Please read the first post I made (06:56, 14 June 2006 UTC).  If tourists, parents, company recruiters/representatives, and international dignitaries aren't considered people outside of UC Berkeley, then I truly don't know who are.  Instead of assuming that this information is available to "them" elsewhere, find it.  The information offered in the article is more comprehensive than it is anywhere else. Apook 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * the dining program is an intricate and important part of any post-secondary school. I've eaten at Cal Dining facilities: No. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't really care at all whether the information is available to people elsewhere. I'm also rather uninterested in precedents; Wikipedia has its share of bad or unnecessary or otherwise unfortunate articles, WoW themed and otherwise. None of them have any bearing here. Furthermore, Apook, I must respectfully point out that I am not convinced that you're not a sockpuppet. Even if you are not, I must also point out that with the exception of a single edit on Monta Vista High School, you have never contributed to Wikipedia except twice on your own user page, and on this discussion. This, particularly when combined with your comments, leads me to believe that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's goals or policies and as such I will take your arguments with a grain of salt. I realize that you feel that this article should stay, but this far your arguments for that have mostly ignored any arguments against its inclusion and have been based on inconsequential and irrelevant straw men, such as whether WoW articles are fan fiction or whether landmarks in capital cities are somehow comparable to landmarks in universities. And yes, I'm sure that WP:CRUFT says many things, but WP:CRUFT is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. In any case, consensus will settle this issue in the end, not armchair lawyering or arguments about the wording of specific rules. I think you can very clearly see where the consensus is heading right now. If you want to change that, I suggest that instead of arguing here, you work on the article to establish notability -- if you can -- because that will most likely sway us. Building straw men here will not. -- Captain Disdain 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Calcruft. WP:NOT a travel guide, not a how-to manual. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (Go Bears)
 * Delete Not particuarly notable and falls under 'cruft as well.--Auger Martel 11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with UC Berkeley student housing since Dining is a division of Housing Services. Most diners are Cal students living in residence halls. Calwatch 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Dear God; we're writing Wikipedia articles about lunchrooms now?! --FuriousFreddy 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least Merge I found it interesting and notable and I've never even been to California. Ace of Sevens 14:21, 18 June 2006 (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.