Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University tunnels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Notability appears to exist, though cleanup may be needed.--Kubigula (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia University tunnels

Columbia University tunnels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Plenty of original research; the few statements that are sourced come from unreliable sources (personal websites.) Also fails notability; no reason to believe that these tunnels are more notable than any other university tunnels. Chardish 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Actually, upon reading the article, they do seem more interesting than any old university tunnels. Finding good sources for these sorts of things is hard. SolidPlaid 03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fascinating, but unnotable (many universities have tunnel "systems" of varied complexity). Most of the article fails WP:V flat. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - and put verifiable information in the main Columbia University article. Some of the claims made in this article are indeed interesting if true, but we should be writing articles after we have sources, not before.--Danaman5 03:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very much a part of Columbia's history, especially during the riots. Sure, other schools have similar tunnels, but do they have a tradition of students going into them and mapping them like at Columbia? Notable for historical and architectural reasons. Wl219 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, usually they do have traditions of students going into them and mapping them. It's just that there are no reliable sources for many of these tunnel systems, Columbia's included. Wikipedia does not allow original research, including primary sources such as this one. - Chardish 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable original research. There are people who explore underground urban environments - their interest doesn't support notability. MarkBul 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a pretty biased view. Wl219 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Columbia University, with verifable facts only used. Very interesting, but isn't worth to be a single article. --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have found a some sources from Wired and Ivy League School History. There are also other that I havn't had time to go through yet - [1][2][3][4][5] - Fosnez 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article mostly consists of non-notable trivia; delete or redirect to Columbia University. Some of the material might be worth merging into the main article, in the form of a couple sentences. - Mike Rosoft 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • On the second thought, I recommend the article to be redirected to Columbia University (not deleted outright), to allow salvageable material to be merged into the main article (as long as good references can be found). - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd also like to point out that the article is already being used as a reference and the article's history section seems quite important/notable. - Fosnez 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah; the map (which seems to be a a case of original research anyway) has been uploaded to what looks like a blog as "the most accurate map of the tunnels they could find". Much less persuading when phrased like this. - Mike Rosoft 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Columbia's tunnels are more notable than a typical school's due to their vastness, connections to almost every building on campus, and history. Note Edison's reference below, which called them the most famous and perhaps the largest in the entire country. Here's another source detailing some of their fame: The New Yorker wrote a piece about the cyclotron built in secret in the tunnels, which is where the Manhattan Project first split the atom [online excerpt]. The argument for deletion seems to be that there are too many unsourced claims, but rather than delete the entire article, i think we should list the unsourced claims in the talk page, attempt to find reliable sources for them, and remove the claims where this cannot be done. I believe a substantial percentage of the article would survive such a culling. --Mike Schiraldi 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep My first inclination was to say that lots of universities have heating tunnels, but these have some additional notability. Sourcing ought to be found, however, especially since this one wasn't "nominated at birth". Mandsford 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The articles in Wired and New Yorker technically satisfy WP:N's requirement of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Also see "New York Underground" by Julia Solis, [6] pp 168-170:"Columbia's tunnel system is said to be the largest of any university in America, and is probably the most famous." This source also says the tunnels played an important role in the Manhattan Project. There is nothing "inherently non-notable" about an extensive and historic tunnel system connecting the buildings of a prominent university. If anything, it could be merged to an article about the university rather than deleting such well-sourced material. Any unsourced statements can be deleted. That's what we call "editing." Edison 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep articles provided as sources provide the substantial coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability criterion. Alansohn 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep lots of historical significance although more sources would be needed.--JForget 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there will be additional sourcing. Because of the exceptionally compact nature of the columbia campus compared to other major universities, these have a particular importance and, obviously, attraction to the students with is reflected in the material available. DGG (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if the notability issue is satisfied (and, as the nominator, I feel it has been), there are still serious original research issues here, including the map (of unknown accuracy), and many of the specific locations of the tunnels. Anything that can't be sourced should be removed from the article; if there's not enough remaining to constitute a full article, it should be merged. - Chardish 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The link you provided to WP:NOR has a section of bullet points with the heading, "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following..." Which of these items do you feel the map violates? --Mike Schiraldi 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't really violate any of those bullet points, yet those points are not the exclusive definition of original research. According to the first line of the policy: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories...the map is a large collection of unpublished facts (and theories, particularly the "rumored" tunnels.) I would agree that there are some categories of information that are trivially verified and do not require sources, but I do not think that "the locations of secret underground tunnels which are not officially acknowledged by their builders" is such a category. - Chardish 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sure, some problems, but notable (we have plenty of articles on individual Columbia buildings) and sourceable. Sdedeo (tips) 05:08, 14 September 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.