Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaton Hall

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 of the debate was no consensus - about 66% believe that this content should be somewhere, but several of those assertions are weak, and there is no consensus at all whether to keep or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seaton Hall

Delete - non-notable campus building. Campuscruft. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -non-notable collage. - Richardcavell 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The college itself is not notable. The buildings of it, even less so. Darquis 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight Merge Kansas State is a non-notable college? What on earth does that means? With 23,182 students enrolled? *scratches head* - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The college itself, no. It's college of architecture? IMO, yeah. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Kansas State University, how can you call KSU non-notable? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I believe he is referring to KSU's "College of Architecture, etc...". Colleges are contained inside of a university. Wickethewok 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification Yes, I meant the college of architecture, not the entire college itself. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This building is listed and linked on the on KSU's Wiki page just like all the other buildings in the campus. The College of Architecture is contained inside the greater University just like Arts and Sciences and Enginering, etc... Seaton Court (part of Seaton Hall) is also one of the oldest buildings on campus so how can it be a non-notable building? KSU is one of the 2 largest colleges in Kansas, along with KU, so the University would also be notable. User:Googletree
    • Response - clearly the university is notable. However, just because something is contained on a different Wiki does not mean it belongs here. Wickethewok 04:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Every major building on campus has its own Wiki page with information and history about the building on it so what is wrong with this building having its own also? User:Googletree
User has 17 edits, all made within the last 24 hours. Kimchi.sg 09:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Response Yes, but just because those pages have their own articles here on Wiki isn't a justification for this one to have it's own as well. Each page should be looked at on it's own merits. Darquis 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be plenty of precedent for buildings like this to be considered notable. Metamagician3000 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Several other buildings of the Kansas State University have articles. I don't know if there's a precedent for keeping all college buildings, or only the most notable ones (i.e. those on the National Register of Historic Places or those of particular importance to the university). In the absence of any real strong reason to delete it, though, I don't think it's hurting anything. --Elkman - (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response A quick Google search of Seaton Hall puts the top 2 results as sites that show pictures or talk about this building and its uses. (discounting the Seton Hall University which is an alternate spelling) User:Googletree 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Response That's hardly valid logic. If you google my Wiki user name, I show up 3 times in the top 10 results. My own ego aside, that doesn't make me notable. Darquis 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Note I have removed some copyvio from the article. Might want to check the other building articles for same. —porges(talk) 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The article fails to state how this building is special. ("In 1999 the East wing underwent major renovations... Ebert Mayo Design Group was responsible for the plans. This phase cost $4.1 Million" doesn't really count, since many buildings get upgraded with time.) And lastly, the article seems to focus more on the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design that occupies the building than the building itself. Merge information on College of Architecture, Planning, and Design into main Kansas State University article and then Demolish the article. Me runs off to start article on Nanyang Technological University Hall of Residence 12 hoping it will escape AfD... Kimchi.sg 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: removing merge suggestion, there is nothing on the other colleges in the main KSU article and I don't think there's enough material in this one to warrant an exception. Kimchi.sg 09:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kimchi.sg (if anything is merged, it will have to be made into a redirect to preserve attribution for the GFDL, though). -- Kjkolb 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative article. -- JJay 11:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The building itself is too narrow a topic for a Wikipedia article, and the article rambles off into a discussion of the College of Architecture which is located there. --Metropolitan90 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Elkman. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90 -- Hirudo 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kansas State --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to University. --Eivindt@c 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Keep or Merge, but more towards Keep I've been in it. It's rather large. Larger than Anderson Hall even, and almost the size of Hale Library. By the way, Kansas State University lists plenty of its buildings, and several of them are bluelinked. --Shultz IV 11:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable, dare I say famous, building. -Mask 15:25, 6 May 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.