Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Margaret's College, Otago


 * 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

St Margaret&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable dormitory at a University. Shows no independent notability. Jayron32| talk | contribs 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Agreed. Not notable. Guldenat (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand and add sources. Many of the Colleges of the University of Otago have articles, which demonstrate notability and are sourced. Some are younger than this College. I think it should be given the chance to develop in the way those articles have. It is not a dormitory. It is a University College. Let us use the correct term used in New Zealand. --Bduke (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The situation with NZ University colleges is a little difficult - they are more than just dormitories, but less than the British university colleges, though some did start their life as separate colleges along British lines. St Mags is one of the more notable of New Zealand's univesity colleges, and certainly one of the more notable of Otago's, and I could provide quite a large number of sources showing independent notability if you wish (let's start with Morrell, W.P. (1969). The University of Otago" A centennial history Dunedin:University of Otago Press.; Herd, J. and Griffiths, G (1980) Discovering Dunedin. Dunedin:John McIndoe.) Grutness...wha?  01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for producing source. I still maintain this should be deleted, as one of the print sources is a history of the University published by the University... I would not call that independent.  It would be nice to see some more independent sources.  If some more truly independent sources could be produced that discuss this subject in detail, we may have something, but as yet I don't see enough.  Also, with regards to Bduke's rational just because no one has deleted other articles yet does not excuse this one of its shortcomings. Grutness is on the right idea, and I would like to see some more sources before I change my mind on this one... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the University of otago press is provbably the biggest publisher of books on Dunedin, it makes it pretty difficult to find books on subjects connected to that city's history that are not published by them. If the book had been published by St. margaret's (which is largely independent of the university), then that would, as you say, not be a reliable independent source. Something published by the OUP is, however, about as independent as a book by any other publisher. BTW, one of the sources noted that this was the first women's hall of residence anywhere in Oceania - surely enough notability for a "keep". Grutness...wha?  23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that a large number of articles on University Colleges are on Wikipedia. Few have been sent to AfD and most have been kept. It seems to me quite clear that many are notable, deserve articles and rightly have articles. Some Halls of Residence have had more difficulty showing notability when challenged, possibly because they are more recent or lack the activities that can distinguish Colleges from Halls of Residence. On the source above, Colleges do have some independence from the university and histories of universities have some independence from the university too, even if published by the universities. Universities ask prominent historians to write such articles. They are generally not fluff pieces such as histories of corporate industries can be if published by the company. Universities have a reputation for independent research to live up to. I would therefore say that that book mentioned above is a reliable source and could justify notability for the College if it deals with it some detail. --Bduke (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a different definition of notability than Wikipedia uses. I understand that the entire rest of the world uses the word "notable" to mean someone cares about the subject a lot.  At Wikipedia, in order to be deemed notable enough to merit an article, a subject must have multiple, independent, reliable sources which to write the article from.  There does not seem to be any significant independent sources which can be used as reliable references for this article.  All we seem to have is sources connected to the subject itself (websites and books published by the College or the University it is associated with).  Also, there are thousands of articles that do not currently meet these standards at Wikipedia.  That does not mean that this article is excused.  Also, there are likely OTHER articles on similar entities that DO meet this standards.  That sources exist for other dormitories or residence halls or halls of residence or university colleges or anything else does NOT mean that the sources exist for THIS article.  If this article is to be improved, then sources need to be provided that establish that this article is about a notable subject.  Just because other deletable articles exist and haven't been deleted yet doesn't make this one notable, and just because there are articles about notable subjects that can be classified as the same thing as this one can doesn't make this one notable.  What will make it notable is the existence of multiple, extensive, independent, and reliable sources.  Providing them as Grutness is trying to do will make this article be kept.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are reading what I said. In my first comment I used the existence of other articles on Colleges at Dunedin to suggest that this one should be given time and expanded with sources. What is wrong with that? My expansion was developing that theme. On the sources, we clearly could be disagreeing. I am saying they are likely to be OK. You are just assuming they are not because one of them is published by the university. I do not think the dependence is sufficient to ignore it. However, I have not read them, so I have no definite conclusion. Also if an article asserts notability, it should be sourced not deleted. A college at one of the oldest universities in New Zealand and one of the oldest Colleges too, is almost certain to have reliable sources that demonstrate notability. You should not be in a rush to delete it. Note I am not a New Zealander and only know a little about The University of Otago. People who do know should add sources. --Bduke (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD's run for one week. If people who care have sources, they will be added.  It is being given time.  If no sources can be produced, we should not indefinately keep an article on a non-notable subject around under the idea that someday a source may exist somewhere.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first women's hall of residence in Oceania is hardly "non-notable". Grutness...wha?  23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   -- Bduke (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete Just a residence hall, based on the article and the sources, not a college in the UK sense. Such are almost never notable. DGG (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Krakatoa  Katie  09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. The citations simply prove that this hall of residence exists and don't appear to discuss it in any detail. Aren't articles on college dormitories one of the classic things articles shouldn't be created about? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True, unless of course, there is something notable about them, such as being the oldest of their type in a continent, say - as is the case here. Grutness...wha?  10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per the handbook it is only marginally more than a "hostel" (which seems to be the best correspondence to the US "dorm"), in that it provides "welfare staff" and "tutorial facilities". But it is in no way a college in the Oxbridge sense, even if it is an independent institution. The only issue is that it seems to not really be part of the university, but regardless I don't think notability is established. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the handbook linked to by Dhartung and secondary sources provided above. It's a lot more than a US dorm.  Hobit (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. The rationale provided for deletion is misleading as this is, as stated, much more than a United States dorm.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What is it, then? Why is it notable? (And the handbook is not an independent source.) I'm open to cogent argument. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why have you seemingly ignored the cogent argument that being the oldest women's hall in Oceania is notable enough for an article? Grutness...wha?  00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a private part of a public school with a long history. As noted below, it has an alumni society and had a rather large reunion. Toss in it's claim to being the oldest women's hall in Oceania, and I think you've got something. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment this "college" had a reunion and has an alumni society. My dorms didn't have that.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not just a "dormitory", and has independent notability. That the sources aren't quite up to scratch (although I'm quite happy they're NPOV and accurate) is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. --Dom (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness. Limegreen (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article describes this a hall of residence and nothing here to indicate independent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (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.