Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd House

 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 SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 18:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd House
This page was already deleted after a vote. I have moved the archive of that process to the bottom of the page. Please tell me if that is the correct thing to do in this circumstance, this is my first VfD. The current revision does not demonstrate any significance. Personally I don't think any dorm, no matter who slept there, needs more than a few sentences on the main page of a university. GabrielF 20:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. This article seems to have been re-created after having been deleted as a result of the earlier VfD basically for the reason that you state. That makes it a candidate for speedy deletion.  I see from the history that you added the  to it, which was correct.   An anonymous editor removed it, probably the same anonymous editor who recreated the article, although the IP address is different.   I'm replacing the speedy-delete tag, but I have no confidence it will stay there without a battle. --BM 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually is the tag for this situation. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag because this is no longer the substab that was deleted before. I am abstaining on whether to keep this version. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted before only because it was a stub or sub-stub; among the reasons it was deleted before was that college dormitories generally are not notable and the article didn't establish that this dormitory was any exception. It still does not. It should be speedy-deleted, per Wikipedia policy, as the recreation of an article that has been deleted through VfD.  If the previous decision was incorrect, or someone wants to argue that they have a new version that does not have the problems of the previous version, it should be submitted to Votes for undeletion, where the burden of achieving consensus will be on those who want to reinstate the article. Otherwise, anybody can re-create an article at will and argue that the new version overcomes the objections of the previous VfD, and VfD will have no meaning at all.  --BM 14:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete again. Ths information is already (still!) largely covered in the Housing section of the Caltech page.  If someone wants to break out a California Institute of Technology (Housing) article (or something similar) there is a case to be made for that.  Articles on each individual House constitute excessive granularity. --TenOfAllTrades 16:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have speedy deleted it as re-creation of an article voted for deletion. I have then made it into a redirect to California Institute of Technology and protected it in order to prevent further re-creation vandalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd House (Archived)
Lloyd House was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 delete.

OK, are college dorms encyclopedic, in this case at a very notable institution? It looks like there are several of these created today. I've only submitted one of them. --BM 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking at the California Institute of Technology page, there's room for expansion.  A photo; history; famous ex-residents.  Wikipedia isn't paper.  Dbenbenn 00:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of being encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 01:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dunster House, one of the undergraduate houses at Harvard has an article. Al Gore lived there while at Harvard.  (I lived there too -- is under-achieving notable?)   So it looks like there is a precedent for this type of article.  Caltech being the alma mater of many famous people, an article similar to the Dunster House one could probably be written about Lloyd House too.  Still, I'm not sure about this as a precedent, since there must be a gazillion named college dorms.  --BM 02:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "It's a dormitory" isn't encyclopedic.  If there's something special about it that makes it notable, then the article should say so. Shimeru 02:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete.Mikkalai 04:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten to provide evidence of notablity. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this needs an article. Other contributions from this author include Avery House, Dabney House and Ruddock House. Maybe Merge these into California Institute of Technology and Delete. Keeping these would open room for more college dorms and it's impossible to find how many of them are notable and how many are not. utcursch 12:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. So someone famous might have slept there. Well, so what? We're not going to create articles on the beds that Albert Einstein slept in, so this doesn't make it notable. If this had, say, won an award for it's architectural design or was a major landmark then it would be worth keeping, but the current article has nothing of note whatsoever in it. Since Wikipedia has a decent search engine facility, we don't need this substub as anyone searching the name would get Caltech anyway, which has enough details on these houses to suffice. Some of the other houses aren't stubs, but I'd vote Delete for the rest of these houses too. Average Earthman 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: This substub contains less information about its topic than the parent article, but doesn't mention that fact. Kappa 18:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  19:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMHO this article, Dabney House, and Ruddock House all meet the speedy deletion criterion of "Very short articles with little or no context." I have refrained from voting on this for a day to see whether the contributor was going to write articles on these dorms, but it appears as if these one-sentence statements are it. These dorms could be listed under California Institute of Technology if they are not already, but it's not even worth describing this as a merge, since rewriting the single-sentence articles into a list is essentially the same as just creating the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to see whether the dorms were already listed at California Institute of Technology and list them there if they were not. All eight dorms (yes, Lloyd House and friends are inaccurate) are aleady listed; see the Housing section. In a nice tabular format. With a little picture of the logo/coat-of-arms, name of membership, colors, slogan, motto, and a link to the dorm's website. There is less than no need for breakout articles that provide an inaccurate subset of material that is nicely presented in the CalTech article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, dorms are inherently nn. Wyss 22:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a sub-stub on one dorm of many at the California Institute of Technology. hfool 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as it lacks any content. Had it looked like the Dunster House article mentioned above, it would have been keepable. But it doesn't. / up+land 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's actually something to say about it. I wouldn't consider any individual dorms from my alma mater notable, and I see no reason to assume Caltech's are any more so. Isomorphic 10:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, dormcruft. Edeans 04:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful information Masterhomer 01:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate information. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Vote placed after voting had closed)


 * Not sure which vote this unsigned comment by User:Vacuum is referring to, but it doesn't matter. Voting is not "closed" until whatever time a sysop gets around to acting on the discussion. If that takes longer than five days, people can continue to vote after five days. VfD discussions are guaranteed to last at least five days but can and do last longer, and all votes in them are valid. Votes for deletion/Old: "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: no evidence of significance. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (End of Lloyd_House archive)

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.