Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin-Madison Steam Tunnel System


 * 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 Delete. Shimeru 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison Steam Tunnel System

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing notable about UW-Madison's steam tunnel system. Utility tunnel is more than sufficient to describe the function.n  mi km  15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per  mi km .  →Bobby ← 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable sources seem to have written about this, 1 in article and --W.marsh 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those articles seem unrelated to the steam tunnels (nor indicate their significance). I'm not worried about verifiability/original research - it's trivial to prove that the tunnels exist and provide steam heating.  My concern is that the tunnels are not notable in any way.  Why do the UW-Madison steam tunnels deserve a seperate article?  Why do they stand out?  Looking at the summaries Google provides, the search you linked to doesn't seem to give any articles on the steam tunnels.  mi  km  18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really want get into subjective reasons like what I think this topic is important or unique "enough", I mean, that's not what inclusion is supposed to be about. Wikipedia is not paper, we have plenty of space for topics I personally find boring and unremarkable. The question is just whether enough reliable sources exist to write more than a directory-style entry, and that seems to be the case here ( if nothing else). I somehow suspect more information is available to people who actually know anything about this school, but I admit that's just a hunch. --W.marsh 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I admit the Wikipedia definition of "non-trivial" source is vague, but I'd like to see proof that at least one of these articles is about the steam tunnel system or at least gives some kind of a hefty chunk of information about them. If we've just got articles that say it's just a place where some cyanide was stashed, I doubt it's notable enough, and it should be actually put in the article by someone. Incidentally, W.marsh, if you stick double quotes (") around some of your search terms, you'll reduce the number of irrelevant hits.Noroton 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in this case... not every mention of this topic is guaranteed to say the exact phrase "steam tunnel". It's a difficult thing to search for. --W.marsh 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but I was thinking "University of Wisconsin" in quotes, which gets me a bit over 200 articles instead of more than 700. Sorry, this is probably something I should have brought up on your talk page. If you can just find that second article, I'll change to "Keep". Noroton 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Wisconsin-Madison. The reference that W.marsh gave at link 14 above is the university's promo website, not an independent source.  The first article in the search at link 13 is a news item about an event (cyanide found stored) that happened to be in the tunnels; it doesn't really indicate that the tunnels are themselves notable.  I lived in Madison for a half-year without attending the university, and I never noticed them mentioned, let alone featured, in the newspapers or TV news.  This suggests that their significance is only among some of the people studying or working on that campus; see WP:LOCAL.  Barno 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've looked through the first three pages of that Google search, and none of the hits appear to feature the tunnel system enough to show enough notability for an article. They're verifiable enough for a descriptive sentence and a sentence about the cyanide case in the parent article, but no more.  Barno 19:39, 30 March 2007 (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.