Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Rice Administration Wing
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 NO CONSENSUS. Clearly this debate does not delete the article, but its eventual disposition is somewhat unclear. I observe that Lankivieil seems unsure that the article should in fact be deleted; the comment sounds more like a redirect/merge to me. -Splash - tk 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edmund Rice Administration Wing
Buidling was previously included in Aquinas College Perth Infrastructure which when submitted to AfD the result was merge to Aquinas College, Perth. Garrie 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Heritage listed building with notable history. Too much information to merge. Rimmeraj 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just so you are aware. The building is already covered in the main article - which includes the same photo, the date it was built, and the fact it is heritage listed. It uses the same references which are included here. The main article has the benefit of not having to spell out where the building is - we can assume it's at Aquinas College, Perth because that's the article it's discussed at.Garrie 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment so why is it up for deletion, instead of changing it to redirecting that article? Also, I feel that this article should stand on its own, and the one you mention should link to this one so that the building can be linked by other articles such as Architecture etc. I still say keep. Remove the detailed information from the main article if required. Rimmeraj 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just so you are aware. The building is already covered in the main article - which includes the same photo, the date it was built, and the fact it is heritage listed. It uses the same references which are included here. The main article has the benefit of not having to spell out where the building is - we can assume it's at Aquinas College, Perth because that's the article it's discussed at.Garrie 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep being heritage listed, makes it notable, verifiable, and Attributable. Gnangarra 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per reasons above. While probably notable enough, I believe that the material would be better collected under Aquinas College, Perth. Lankiveil 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
- Keep. Heritage listed building.--ZayZayEM 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per Lankiveil and Garrie. Orderinchaos 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge then Redirect Does being heritage listed make it notable or significant? If it is a significant building, I would have expected significantly more information about the facility to ascertain it's value and importance. At best this article is a stub and the majority of the information is already contained within the main relevant article. That information is not within the main article can easily be added cleanly without taking up too much space and would not interrupt the flow of the article (in a section named key buildings or facilities). I'm not suprised to see another Aquinas related article at an XfD again. While the efforts of the editors documenting Aquinas must be applauded, regrettably those parties have been the cause of heated debate and discussion as they have just been indiscriminately flooding WP with excess pages, categories, tables, lists, et al. thewinchester 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment current article content insufficiency is not a reason for deletion. Articles should be kept/deleted on potential for expansion. The current article is beyond a stub and self-sufficient.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as previously agreed. DaveApter 09:29, 9 April 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.
