Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Residential colleges of the University of Queensland


 * 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   keep. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Residential colleges of the University of Queensland

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Collection of twelve hostels non-notable hostels. One independent reference between them. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the sources may not be sufficient for individual articles on the Colleges of this university, although they are for some universities, surely they are notable enough for an article that covers all of them. I suggest it should be tagged as requiring sources. These colleges are a notable part of the university, have a history that connects them to outside the university and have been lead and contained members who are notable. I think we need to look for sources, but I am tied up and not that well. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable list Greglocock (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 *  Provisional keep - there were previously individual college articles which were all redirected to this list in January for being unsourced (Cromwell, Duchesne, Emmanuel, St John's, St Leo's, Union, International, Women's, King's and Gatton). Checking the histories, some of the articles are hopeless but some of them are more than capable of being salvaged once the cruft that tends to accompany such articles is culled. If at least one or two of them can be rewritten into a viable form, then this list has a purpose and should be kept. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support provisional keep but with the caveat that at least 3 will neet to be salvaged. One needs no list, and two can just inter-link. Three is enough for a list IMO. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To keep this article, what is needed is in-depth coverage in independent sources. This unsigned comment was added by Stuartyeates (talk). This note was added manually by me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of GNG hits at the NLA archive, here: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=St+Leo%27s+college ... The search is for St Leo's but encompasses most colleges in the list. Don't have time to salvage each individual article right now, maybe next week, but to my mind these sources bring the list to an unqualified keep.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, more or less per Bduke. I will contact some of the colleges and see if I can get some references - given the history a lot of them have I would consider it highly unlikely that some of them, especially the older ones, don't have anything at all.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep, the colleges definitely exist and have a long history although much of the information about them is unlikely to be online (and thus harder to find). Francis Bond (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a unit of a university which has an online catalog and a comprehensive retrospective archival digitisation program . If the university considered the unit noteworthy, there would be online references. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - these are independent residential colleges, not a unit of the University of Queensland -Puckpetspot (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2012 (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.