Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leckhampton, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 17:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Leckhampton, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
Didn't we agree that we didn't need separate articles on each university building? --fvw *  02:14, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable buildings in their own right can and should have separate articles.--Centauri 03:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the "awesome place!" "Come on down!" crap and merge the little bit of useful factual information into the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge article. There's plenty of room for it. -R. fiend 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. They are supposed to grow up and stop vandalising especially if they have gone up to Cantab. -- RHaworth 08:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd argue for keep if there was any degree of architectural notability for it but for Leckhampton there isn't (I used to live further down the same road in one year at Cambridge). Dbiv 10:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to merge with Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Dbiv 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question for fvw: What agreement do you refer to? It would be better if you argued for deletion of the text based on its own (lack of) merits. Whatever happens to this article in its current state should not be taken as a precedent whenever somebody writes a competent and substantial article1 on the King's College Chapel, Cambridge, for instance. / up+land 11:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1By "a competent and substantial article", I mean something other than "King's College Chapel is the chapel of King's College. It Rocks! O Yeah!" / up+land
 * If I may address this, I think fvw is correct when he says there's an agreement that we don't need articles on each university building. That's not the same as saying there should be no individual articles on any university building. King's College Chapel, a very famous building in its own right, could get an article if the information couldn't be dealt with satisfactorally in the King's College article. There are articles for important buildings on some important colleges, but that doesn't mean everyone's encouraged to write an article on their dorm. This example, at least, and many others, is not worth a breakout article. -R. fiend 16:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It should get a separate article anyway, which can then be categorised in architectural categories where the general article would hardly be appropriate Philip 10:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As someone else intelligently said: categories are made to serve articles, articles are not made to serve categories. -R. fiend 18:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Universities have buildings. So what? --BM 17:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. The college may be notable, but not each and every building.  --RoySmith 18:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm a former member and I don't regard it as a subject of encyclopaedic note. Merge anything useful into Corpus Christi College, Cambridge Qwghlm 00:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Idont Havaname 01:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It isn't just one building of course, but many; and the Leckhampton house is listed in the 100 most notable buildings in Cambridge here. Mlm42 18:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So you think that we should have separate articles on the 100 most notable buildings of every university in the world? Or just Cambridge?    If not all universities, how do you propose we decide the quota for each university?  This school vanity is really out of control.   --BM 19:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're asking me big questions about the future of Wikipedia to which i have no answers. But this article is here, now, and it seems reasonable to me. Mlm42 00:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That can hardly be determined through quotas. As R. fiend points about above in his exegesis of fvw's nomination, each building should be judged on its own, and it is likely that Cambridge has more buildings of historical or architectural significance than, say, Ohio Wesleyan University. / up+land 08:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - David Gerard 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a keep now. / up+land 23:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Delete (as I didn't vote above).There is nothing worth keeping in this article, but if somebody would show that there is something of interest to say about Leckhampton, I would be happy to change my vote. / up+land 08:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 08:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) Merge. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Xezbeth  18:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been substantially revised and expanded by knowledgeable people, putting rest to previous concerns about tone and triviality. Dreadnought1906 01:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that Leckhampton is more than a hall of residence or an anonymous University building. Leckhampton is a substantial campus sprawling over many acres and including architecturally important buildings, notable sculpture and one of the UK's important gardens (much visited by connoisseurs).
 * It is controversial to what extent Leckhampton has an identity different from Corpus Christi proper and, as one similar and nearby site has already been carved off into its own college (Clare Hall), knowledge of this campus is important for those interested in Cambridge's future development.
 * The site is also important in its own right to those interested in the development and history of the Fitzwilliam Museum, parapsychology and the social history of postgraduate education. It would be convenient for article writers on these subjects to be able to link to Leckhampton directly and cleanly, rather than refer to a section buried in the main Corpus page.
 * Vote is user's first edit. --fvw *  01:56, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been heavily added to since it was nominated for deletion, and mentions several features of Leckhampton which are significant in the wider context of Cambridge. A merger with the main Corpus Christi article would make the latter too unwieldy. James von Mann 01:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote is user's first edit. --fvw *  01:55, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Comment: It has gotten better and I am considering changing my vote to "keep", but I would like to at least have the names of the architects of the buildings and preferrably a couple of images. I am sure someone at Leckhampton has a digital camera. (Try to get the Henry Moore sculpture in the foreground.) It also needs some NPOVing, but that is easily done. / up+land 10:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vote changed following lobbying (and their edits). Author - you must provide a map link. If you are an Arts person, find a Natural Science or Maths person to help you. Likewise re photo - see above. -- RHaworth 15:54, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with the previously expressed view regarding the importance of Leckhampton as a signpost in the evolution of postgraduate education within Cambridge University. This fact alone differentiates the site from the main Corpus Christi College buildings, with the site comprising what is a separate community. It is this closely knit community that permits Leckhampton to serve the same purpose for Postgraduate students that the main College site does for the Undergraduate community. As such, I believe that Leckhampton is worthy of a separate article, being an unique development in the history of the University as a whole. --BrianColeman
 * What an interesting topic to choose for your first ever edit to Wikipedia, BrianColeman. Dbiv 09:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It sure is a good thing Wikipedia is being so welcoming to its new members (who happen to know the importance of Leckhampton). Mlm42 09:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly a Keeper. Gravitodeathdeathrivercamscooper 22:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * please keep'. Yuckfoo 22:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.