Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduate House (Australian National University)


 * 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 University House, Australian National University.  MBisanz  talk 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Graduate House (Australian National University)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable dorm. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Swift Keep - No more, and more importantly, no less notable than any of the ANU's residential colleges. No specific reasons for deletion advanced or particularised.  Article is well-written, has adequate references for an article of its size; it is better developed than, as examples Graduate House (University of Melbourne) or University of Toronto Graduate House. Subject matter is non-contentious in itself; university residential colleges are not subject to any controverted notability discussions.  There seems no reason at all why the article was nominated for deletion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an "Other Stuff Exists" argument. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Whether or not there are other articles that are less notable is not relevant. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And there are no references. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable building with no objective evidence provided for its meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since when are dormitories notable? WWGB (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. See the List of Bad Article Ideas #4. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep - Residential colleges in Australia are different to dormitories in America - they usually have their own administration, traditions, etc separate from their affiliate university and are thus inherently notable (unlike a dorm, which would be analogous to a building within a hall of residence). Having said that, I'm not familiar with this one, but provided that notability can be established by secondary sources, I think it's a keep.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly merge to University House, Australian National University, as it appears to be a subset of that residence hall (same Master for a start).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable student accommodation (I'm an ANU graduate by the way; despite what was posted above, ANU colleges are little more than dorms, and I think that the same is true for most Australian universities) Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yeti Hunter is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to University House, Australian National University, but not before content added as section - I was wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Yeti Hunter. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are no 3rd party sources for this house at all. Merging to another house does not change that. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you seriously suggesting that the ANU website is not reliable? We're talking about verifiability, not notability in its own right as an article - sources don't need to be 3rd party for that.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason deletion is proposed in the nomination is on notability grounds. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeti is right, once merged notability isn't applicable, but I think the content should be scrutinized before merged to prevent repetition -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "...once merged notability isn't applicable." <-- I disagree. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." If you want to discuss whether its appropriate for the other article, you can't disagree on notability grounds.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not in the sense of general notability requirements it isn't, but I am a firm believer in WP:TOPIC, which it certainly satisfies in this case.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (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.