Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whidden Hall

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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whidden Hall

Vanity, nn. Delete Ardenn 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

• Keep and Expand Whidden Hall is a real place with real characteristics with a real reason to be in Wikipedia. There are many more frivilous entries than this genuine residence hall. Please remove the delete tag, it has every reason to be included in this site.Steelium 16:57, 7 February 2006(UTC)
• Keep That is the most ridiculous reason ever. Whidden Hall is a genuine residence at McMaster University. I can see nothing wrong with it. The information is factual and accurate. I don't see why I even have to dignify the removal of AFD tag. 24.57.131.18 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I'm not sure how the residence system is set up at McMaster, but if they are set up in a manner such as the colleges/houses systems of Yale, Harvard, Cambridge, or Oxford, I would support keeping and adding more information on the page. --Kinu 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Delete. After further review, an article on Whidden does not really meet the criterion for keeping. It's not particularly notable in the sense that it is a "house" or "college" in the Yale/Harvard/Cambridge/Oxford model... it is essentially just a dorm. Most colleges have them, and they are not noteworthy in and of themselves. (After all, why keep this and not Chaparral Village and Chisholm Hall?) Further, the information provided is trivia at best. --Kinu 02:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete Non notable hall of residence. Ok to add the factual info to the university page but much of this is unsourced opinion so full merge not indicated.Obina 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn residence hall. Haikupoet 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- nn my ass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.226.6 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Trivia is not encyclopedic. Mere existence is not enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Peyna 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears some of the other people here have been changing others' comments, etc. I'm going to try to clean this up to what the parties themselves stated. Peyna 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That should take care of it; all is back to normal as of this edit. Peyna 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Keep some more The User Ardenn is a vandal, they have posted the exact same simple "vanity" message, with no explanation, on many AfD pages. Their comments should not be considered here. I have also cleaned up the article a little and added references. The fact that this residence is cited as the inspiration to a major motion picture, AND home to at least two persons of note, is enough to warrant inclusion here. Steelium 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Above vote should not be double-counted; User:Steelium previously voted above at 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC). --Metropolitan90 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't understand how some other people can judge the article without knowing what it is. These random AFD tags are ridiculous. 24.57.131.18 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a discussion and an attempt to reach consensus, not a vote. There is no ballot to stuff, so please don't try. Peyna 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• OH PLEASE..you don't have to be that anal. The consensus is TO KEEP IT since nobody knows anything about it you have no right to delete it either. My question to you is how is it considered as unencyclopedic? It has accurate facts which all encyclopedias should. Now all points are supported by evidence. How can you judge it as "trivia"? are you familiar with the topic at hand? If it is trivia, its only because it is written in that way, if so re-write the article, EXPAND not delete. 24.57.131.18

• Keep yes. you heard me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs).

• Keep and ExpandI don't think vandals or users less than 50 contributions have anything to do with this discussion. My point still stands. See above. 24.57.131.18

Please review the AfD guidelines. Comments from sockpuppets and newbies are generally discounted. Peyna 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into whatever it happens to be a part of. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article on this dorm. Famous residents and interesting tie-in with Animal House. -- JJay 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment1 All the opposition is coming from power hungry wikipedian editors who have no outside life, but somehow yeild ultimate influence on trivial matters such as this and need to make decisions here to make up for the lack of say they have in thier own lives. Steelium
• Comment2 The above warning, that suggests people are being "puppeted" into supporting this page is an unfair advantage to the delete side of the debate, I suggest it be removed. Or the non-deletionists present be allowed to post a similar banner supporting their side. Steelium
• Comment3 I have posted valid reasons for keeping the article, I have referenced the details in question and made attempts to have the page fit the standard. At no point have the deletionists listed more than one-word reasons to delete. Support Summarized: 1) Real place at top three University in Canada 2) 1000s of people have lived there 3) at least 2 famous people are associated with the building 4) Building has 45 year history 5) major movie satirizing contemporary North American college life was inspired by events at this Hall 6) There are FAR more articles that should be recieving more attention for deletion than this one, this article is pretty innocuous. The Hall is not obscure, nor "non-noteable" and passes multiple so-called Wikipedian tests of relevancy. Steelium
• Comment4 I contend that the users suggesting deletion, either have nothing better to do or are alumni or current students at competing universities. Steelium

• I've left a brief, 450 word reply on your talk page. I hope it helps. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I was going to leave a comment here, but I'll follow User:Adrian's lead and move it more appropriately to your talk page. Peyna 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most dormitories are non-notable. The claim in this article that life at this dormitory inspired the movie National Lampoon's Animal House is questionable, given that none of the three writers of the movie attended this university -- only one of the producers did, and he didn't even live in this dormitory according to this article. The only source for the dormitory having inspired the movie is that an article in the college newspaper says it was "rumored" to have done so. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Also, as to Steelium's earlier points: Comments 1 and 4 are irrelevant and seem like violations of the Wikipedia rules about not engaging in ad hominem attakcs. As for Comment 2, are you advocating the censorship of comments regarding possible meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/stuffing? Let people look at the evidence and decide for themselves. Now as to Comment 3: "Real place at top three University in Canada" - so? by this standard we would have literally hundreds of building and dorms that would need to be added. "1000s of people have lived there" - same problem as before. "at least 2 famous people are associated with the building" - again, hardly a big deal, and while John Candy may be the famous, the other individual is not at all. "major movie satirizing contemporary North American college life was inspired by events at this Hall" - This has already been dealt with by Metropolitan90, so let me just add that many colleges and dorms at colleges claim to be inspiration for animal house. " Building has 45 year history" - 45 years is hardly a long enough time to contribute to noteworthiness. "There are FAR more articles that should be recieving more attention for deletion than this one, this article is pretty innocuous" - this is simply irrelevant. If there are articles you feel should be deleted then nominate them (please however refrain from engaging in revenge AfD, they are seriously frowned upon). JoshuaZ 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as there is no solid evidence that it is the inspiration for Animal House, and even if that were the case, it would only be worth a mention in the Animal House and/or McMaster University article. That a famous person, John Candy, lived there is not exceptional. Medium and large universities that have been around for a while are bound to have famous almuni who stayed in the dorms, but that does not confer notability them, or even much to the university. -- Kjkolb 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - articles such as this would be so much less troublesome if they were just redirected to the university to which they belong. I've rarely had my redirect of non-notable topic to related notable topic reverted. And AfD is always an option if it is. -- Jonel | Speak 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is in reasonable shape with some sources. Would clog up main article. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Though I might've said redirect per Jonel, user behavior has convinced me that such wouldn't be sufficient, so I say Delete -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge with whatever Uni its a hall of residence of. Jcuk 08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Damn ballot stuffers. — ciphergoth 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Halls of Residence, University Colleges are important places and there are many articles on WP about them. To those people who want to delete them, I ask you to be consistent. There are about 11 articles on Halls from this university alone. They have links from the main university page. This is just one. If it is worse than the others and it is indeed a poor article, it can be improved. If you want to delete all of them, then give reasons why Halls are not notable. I finally suggest that WP will be the poorer without good NPOV articles on Halls and Colleges so prospective students can look at them as an alternative to the POV articles from the university concerned. --Bduke 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete I'd also vote to ban Steelium. It should be noted that on the IMDB site it clearly states that the insipration for Animal House came from "co-writer Chris Miller's experiences at Dartmouth College." Furthermore, the other co-writer, Harold Ramis brought his inspiration from his days at Washington University in St. Louis. Nice try guys, but this is a clearly non-notable dormitory at a less than notable university. It is not at all encyclopedic. 4.224.192.35 11:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, McMaster University is fairly long so probably shouldnt be merged -- Astrokey44|talk 12:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual dorms are not notable in and of themselves. Furthermore, the assertion that this dorm is notable has not been verified and remains a rumour. (On a side note I will also nominate Smuts Hall for deletion on the same basis, even though I went to UCT.) Zunaid 13:16, 10 February 2006 (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.