Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Residential Services


 * 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 consensus that the individual hall articles shouldn't exist, but no consensus to delete any of them, so keep the MRS article and merge everything else into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Monash Residential Services
Non-notable department of a university; nothing here that wouldn't be better included in Monash University Demiurge 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating related pages for the same reason. See An/I for some discussion.
 * Howitt Hall
 * Farrer Hall
 * Richardson Hall
 * Deakin Hall
 * Roberts Hall


 * Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) - This vote comes from the nominator in an attempt to deceive. THE KING 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Not only are these all notable and deserving of a seperate article to the Monash article, as MRS is a seperate division of Monash to the uni, but this afd is in bad faith, and arises out of the childish wikifuckingaround of Demiurge. They have been on wikipedia for over a year now and i see no grounds for deletion. THE KING 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, merging any useful content. Take a look at Farrer Hall in particular.  "Jack Stephenson was the treasurer of the debateably successful Farrer Hall Society in 2005. He loves to spend time in his bedroom writing reciepts and completing audits and masturbation, a skill which will be handy in his future career as a mechatronic engineer. Jack is probably best known for his poor coordination and inability to properly articulate sentences, particularly in the English language."  Yeah.  That's encyclopedic. BigDT 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So . I'm adding you to my List of people who need to take a serious look at their policy of taking the easy road. THE KING 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please, that includes listing people who "need a kick in the arse" and calling another user a "faggot" on your user page. In my opinion there's nothing to fix. Halls of residence aren't notable, and that includes the one I'm sat in right now. --kingboyk 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content into Monash University, Clayton campus and then delete. Don't leave a redirect.  Metros232 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't merge and then delete, because of copyright reasons. The history of the deleted article contains the list of authors required by the GFDL. --kingboyk 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not as long as you're just merging the information and not using the same wording. Here the significant facts are so scant that shouldn't be difficult.  Postdlf 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the AfD policy, you can't actually say merge and delete under GFDL. What is the practical harm in a redirect? Go and build up an article instead of worrying about whether a redirect is reasonable. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head there Ansell. Well done. THE KING 13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Halls of residence are not ordinarily notable. Farrer Hall might be considered for WP:BJAODN because that's what it is, bad jokes and nonsense. --kingboyk 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, merging any useful (i.e., significant) facts. Postdlf 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, along with almost every dorm article, except those that are legitimately historic. Friday (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is continued discussion about Halls of Residence. A compromise that has been reached in some other places is for a single article that gives information about all Halls in a particular university. This is usefull when the main university article is getting large. The suggestion here is a merge to Monash University, Clayton campus. This article for the main campus is very recent and will get much larger. Most information on the main campus was and still is in Monash University. Articles for some of the other smaller campuses at Monash are larger than the one for the main campus. My proposal is to keep Monash Residential Services but delete the articles for the individual Halls at Monash but adding South East Flats to the five listed above. --Bduke 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Monash Residential Services and merge individual colleges into it. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. So very non-notable. —phh (t/c) 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete organisation page.--Peta 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge as per capitalistroadster Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete the individual halls. Maybe merge the information to the residential services article, or a campus article. JPD (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Merge and delete is not valid under the GFDL. See the AfD policy statement which says you cannot do this. Ans  e  ll  11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you merge facts only, instead of just copying and pasting text from one article to another, nothing copyrighted is involved. Postdlf 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not a correct assertion. The facts were contributed by someone. As such the history of the edits must be kept. This is possible with merge and redirect, but not with merge and delete. What is the huge problem with a redirect anyway? People act like its the end of the earth, go clear a backlog or two. Ans  e  ll  01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a correct assertion, and it's what makes Wikipedia, a secondary source, possible&mdash;copyright doesn't protect facts, or the effort of researching them. It only protects creative expression.  There's accordingly no obligation to keep a record of who contributed what facts as long as you're not using their copyrighted expression.  See Feist v. Rural, rejecting that copyright protects the "sweat of the brow."  If you have any further questions, you're welcome to post them on my talk page.  Postdlf 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you dont see the distinction between copyright and GFDL, GFDL actually cares about contributions and as such you should find a better case law precedent for your argument. BTW, it is relevant here, not on your talk page. Ans  e  ll  10:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to keep a tangent from swamping this AFD. Anyway, I'm really not clear on what your rationale is.  You seem to be suggesting that the license itself creates rights in the grantor, which is not how it works.  The GFDL is a license for the use of copyrighted material.  A license is a grant of permission extended by someone who has the rights to control the subject matter of the license.  If something is not copyrightable, licenses are irrelevant, because your permission is not needed for someone to make use of something you do not have the right to control.  You can't give more than what you have.  Postdlf 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Individual Halls can be merged under MRS, but my images should stay. Vincentshia (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Monash University, Clayton campus (minus the references to homosexuality and masturbation, of course). --Roisterer 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up if needed. --JJay 00:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Fails WP:CORP as a stand alone company.  If any of this really needs to be kept, it can be Merged into the school's article. Vegaswikian 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual halls have been kept as notable before, and I see no reason why this isn't the case here. They undoubtedly need cleanup however. I also oppose merging with Monash Residential Services; these halls are far more well known than the body that owns them. Rebecca 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they could be merged into a new article, Notable Residential Halls in Monash University or something. I'm not too fussed about the fate of those particular articles.  However, if there is a merge, the articles almost must be kept.  Here are the reasons we always merge and redirect instead of merging and deleting:
 * As Peter pointed out above, the bloody GFDL. We can't deliberately take someone's work and then delete any records tying them to their contribution; it's not only a copyright violation, it's immoral, too.  And something like "rewording the facts to get around copyright" fixes one problem, but not the other.
 * People will expect to be able to find the articles at their current locations; if we move the information to another article, it's Common Sense to provide a redirect so everyone knows where it's gone.
 * Similarly, searching. If I've just stumbled across Wikipedia and I want to find out about Howitt Hall, a redirect is very useful for that purpose (since our search engine sucks).
 * There is no good reason for deleting the redirect. Some people on AfD (usually newbies, which is why it's disappointing to see people like Postdlf arguing otherwise) tend to want redirects deleted after merging so they can have the satisfaction of deleting something, and that's just sad.  Why delete when you don't have to?
 * Surprisingly enough, it's actually more work for the closing admin to merge and delete. And as a closing admin, I put enough work into these damn things already without all y'all inventing more out of sheer devilment.
 * And here's why we might want to delete the redirect instead:
 * It has an offensive name.
 * Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's the only reason. So ... why are we merging and deleting, again? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 9 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.
 * 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.