Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/709 Brown

Add links
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 Delete (count on talk page) karmafist 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

709 Brown[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion. I moved it here. Appears to be a non-notable residence hall, with possible test edits at the bottom. I recommend Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:19, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete. Not about the residence hall, but rather a suite in the dorm. -- JJay 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully this page won't be deleted, I'm planning on adding more sections and filling them out, I wanted a place to chronicle the past of the suite. There is alot of information I was planning on adding, I'm new to Wikipedia and hadn't thouroughly read the policies but I can see how it could possibly qualify for deletion under the vanity rule. I didn't think of it at the names atime I started writing it because I wasn't doing it for myself, I've been asked by a lot of people to put a page for 709 so that there would be an easily accesible collection of all the information in one place. Please tell me if it will be deleted or not, I don't really want to write anymore if it is going to be deleted. -- Teknofreak642
  • Probably good odds that it gets deleted. Publish it on a blog site -- JJay 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic partycruft. Eddie.willers 13:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inside jokes. Ifnord 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Consider userfying? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For what it's worth, the suite (and members of it) have completely changed the physical appearance of the living area in question, influenced university policy from alcohol regulations to standards of behavior, and had a constant and resounding influence in all aspects of the dorm over the course of the last five years. Certainly they deserve as much of a right to existence as, say, Wikipedia's fraternity entries. Regarding the university's social life/community activities, you'd be hard pressed to find any group on campus with a more illustrious history. -PaxilFoley
  • I noticed that one of the reasons for vanity entries not being allowed is that besides the first person, they are rarely contributed to by others. I decided that I would try and undertake the mission of documenting the 709 history, but I don't even come close to knowing everything about the suite and its history, I can gaurantee that if the 709 entree remains, numerous people will contribute to the entree. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single suite in a dorm is too specific a topic to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 22:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entry should not be deleted!! The 709 suite has single handledly changed the perception of the sylvan living area at UMass. It's gone from a perception of a group of suicidals to party animals in 3 years!! Props to the forefathers for changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.237.38 (talk • contribs)
  • In order to comply with the guidlines about no orginal research, I am currently working on getting copies of the daily Collegian which has done a profile of how 709 has changed the Sylvan living area, also in the daily collegian is a comic strip about 709 which I am also working on getting to post on the entree. In addition to these, I have posted the letter regarding a pool party, and am getting maintenance logs concerning the suite. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't delete it! If the minigame 'Defense of the Ancients' in Warcraft 3 is worthy of "encyclopediac" notice, then this is DEFINATELY worthy of being on Wikipedia. 709 has changed lives!
  • Keep. This entry should absolutely not be deleted. Even though 709 is just one suite inside a building, the suite also represents the heart and soul of the building and the area. Everyone who lives or has lived in sylvan over the last 3 years knows 709. It is the one place you can go to take the edge off an otherwise meagre college existence. I give props to all those with the foresight to create something out of nothing and the fact that what they started has continued to a second generation is testament to their genius.
  • Nuke it from orbit, then salt the earth. It's the only way to be sure that this semi-finalist candidate for the Least Useful Wikipedia Article Ever goes away for good. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sincere, then Keep. TeknoFreak642 has yet to post what interim restriction was whipped on them. How about names and pix of janitors who sucked up the water in the foyer? Did the residents deal with the tarps and pool or did that get dumped on maintenance too? If TeknoFreak642 won't cough up, then insincere, in which case: delete. 207.172.134.175 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted information regarding details that you asked for, as well as a picture from the party showing the pool in the common room. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you did. K E E P Life at Amherst in the form of 709 Brown. Nice shot by Cate, and the janitors needed to do nothing. I hope you get away with it. Metarhyme 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Though notable to the residents of the suite and the dorm, it is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. # of relevant Google hits (UMASS "Brown 709") = 0. Should every individual chapter of a college fraternity/sorority get a page if they can provide pictures and describe their activities? I vote "NO". ERcheck 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you say it is not notable enough for a wikipedia entry and yet, I feel as though that is the very nature of wikipedia. A repository for the largest ever collection of human knowledge, with no piece of information too small to be included. It makes me sad to think that certain things may be deemed too small, unimportant, or irrellevent for what I consider the greatest human achievment ever. Teknofreak642 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case this wasn't made real clear above, you COULD always reproduce the article on your userpage, should you so desire. --InShaneee 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous vanity CDC (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Ambi 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JJay. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It quite clearly exists; thus, it deserves an article. Kurt Weber 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article can be improved to sound less like someone who lives there wrote it. --Iten 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/709_Brown&oldid=1144089329"