Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Exeter Halls of Residence


 * 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Exeter Halls of Residence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Beyond doubt, the University of Exeter is notable. But that doesn't apply to each of their buildings. I also fail to see how this amount of detail coverage (including list of resident tutors, pricing, etc.!) can reasonably be attributed to independent sources. Notability concerns have not been addressed within almost a year. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But there isn't an article about each of their buildings - this is one article about a considerable number of their buildings. I would however agree that this article contains a lot of current detail that should go. It should mainly contain information of longer term interest to the history of the institution. Pterre (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am against individual articles on each hall but an omnibus article seems just fine. TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with TF's comments. This omnibus article was created to prevent proliferation of non-notable articles. There is a whole category of UK Halls of Residence - and I couldn't spot any other article within the category which is AfD. Why should UofExeter HoR be taken out and shot? Surely the whole category needs deleting if this argument holds. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - having had look around this Category:University and college residential buildings and Category:University and college buildings I am even more disappointed at this nomination. We all have a deep and abiding knowledge of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP is not run by precedent etc etc but I think that we should try to have a consistent approach to like pages. Taking one University at random, I looked at Category:University of Pittsburgh buildings which contains wholly nn buildings such as Mervis Hall as well as several highly notable buildings. These cats would benefit from more omnibus articles pulling out what is actually important from buildings of lesser notability. The point I am making is that rather than randomly deleting one omnibus article the project would benefit from a holistic approach. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment: I know it appears like this article is being singled out among University buildings, but I don't think that's the case in truth. It's been tagged with notability since May 2007, which happens to be the month we're up to in working through the 15,000+ article backlog over at WikiProject Notability. If similar articles had been so tagged in that month, they'd probably be undergoing a similar evaluation. That said, I approve of having this sort of omnibus article, and I think that, in aggregate, a respectable and reliably sourced article can be written about these buldings. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is a helpful explanation, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per nom. In principle I support omnibus articles (I very much support district articles, for example), but I don't see anything notable when looking through this article.  The information (if continually updated) seems like it would be useful, but not encyclopedic; perhaps something for a university wiki.  On the other hand, TerriersFan thinks it's notable, and that should count for something. Thus I !vote weakly rather than normally. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: As Jfire has pointed out, I chose this article for nomination (and not another university's) because it had been tagged with notability concerns roughly a year ago. If there are other articles which share the same problem, you may want to place the notability tag on them. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * enormously better than articles about the individual residence halls, and this serves as a useful compromise place to merge them. Without articles like this, we'd be debating each individual building. DGG (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This arose after a AfD on articles on individual Halls of residence. They are sufficiently important to be brought together in a single article. --Bduke (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. &mdash; Noetic  Sage  18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article looks ok actually.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  18:01, 13 April 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.