Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley College, University of Sydney


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wesley College, University of Sydney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DELETE: Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people. Nothing obvious in google or google news A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 12.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to a hypothetical Accommodation at the University of Sydney along with The Women's College, University of Sydney. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article certainly needs improvement but that is not a reason for deletion. It needs work. I do not understand the rationale behind "Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people". The two notable Masters have their own articles that explain their work for the College. If the membership of the College is not supported by their articles (I have not checked them) they can be removed.  The only other person mentioned is the Master and that detail is supported by the link to the College web page. The proposer is probably unaware that describing this College as a "hostel" will be seen by the members of the College as a rather unfortunate POV. This is a College that offers more than just a place to sleep. Colleges at the University of Sydney are important institutions. The building itself is notable and that section can be expanded. There are 4 more substantial articles on other Colleges and I do not believe there would be consensus to merge them to Accomodation at the University of Sydney, so having that article for just two colleges is not a good idea. I support keeping this article, although due to illness and travel I will not have the time to work on it. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  22:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: that the nominator is currently blocked indefinitely. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I stated on this AfD. The University of Sydney aspired to the same level of the top British Universities of the 1850s during its formation, which means I'm going to treat this as inherently notable for consistency with Oxford, Cambridge and Durham colleges (to pick but three examples). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.The question is not (and has never been) "are residential university colleges notable?" the question is (and has always been) "has this particular entity received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per the WP:GNG and WP:ORG?" BourbonandRocks (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — BourbonandRocks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You need to remember that WP:GNG is a guideline. The actual important policies here are verifibility and neutral point of view. What the specific circumstances do (as seen at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, for instance) is it allows us to, provided at least one source proves such a subject's existence, to default to assuming sufficient reliable sources exist somewhere for such a subject, and we expect them to be available for verification somewhere - although their existence may appear in print records that are hard to find. Similarly, articles can have coverage in reliable sources yet deleted from Wikipedia anyway because they violate WP:NOT - The weather in Paris, for example, is verifiable by reliable sources, but not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Don't assume reliable source coverage is the be all and end all. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What would your view be on WP:Notability (schools) failing, leaving us to fall back on WP:ORG? As these instiutions are not schools? BourbonandRocks (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'd provide some sources such as this, this, this, this and this. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is another major college, there are plenty of reliable sources about. I'm adding a few, but they're just a drop in the ocean. --99of9 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, while you're looking for sources in the NSW National Library of Australia, 99of9, I don't suppose you could dig out another source for the "Criticism" section I put in? As living people are involved, I'm not sure it will stick with a single Sydney Morning Herald source. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NLA only digitizes out of copyright newspapers, and I didn't see any criticism in that really old stuff, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html would have more recent SMH articles Paul foord (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously not a hostel. I wonder if this nomination is a negative reaction to something given that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Duplicate of the other nom. BerleT (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (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.