Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Residential colleges of Griffith University

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. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Residential colleges of Griffith University[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I dont think these colloges are indivuually notable (content is university prospectus material), nor do I think that its a useful redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main Griffith University page would just have too much information if all of the material on this page was included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringbokSam (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources on the vast amount of residential colleges at long-standing universities (I can't think of one I couldn't off the top of my head), and it's not like they've gone for articles on individual halls, which could get more borderline. This should have been given an unsourced tag rather than being nominated for deletion - it needs referencing but it's pretty obvious the sources are there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to support this deletion but then I noticed other similar pages and that it would clutter the main uni page. It should be kept as long references can be found. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment The above argument is of course WP:OTHERSTUFF and is an argument for the mentioned paged to be at AfD rather than for keeping this opne. As for the other "Keep", of cource there will be sources mentioning these halls of residence; this does not mean that they are notable independenly of the university. I also do not see enough content in the article as it stands to create much of a problem for the page on the university. Basically dormcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, all the content of this article is already in the (grossly underreferenced) article on the uni.TheLongTone (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article to suggest that any of these are independently notable. A condensed entry on the university's article would be sufficient. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we have precedent that, as a general rule, residential colleges of Australian universities are by that fact notable. The existence of the category Category:Residential colleges of Australian universities and the number of articles in that category (I count 61) is a demonstration of this precedent. Given that precedent, I would submit this article is notable. I should note that, in the Australian context, university residential colleges may be in a somewhat different category than say dormitory halls in the US. In many (but not all cases), they are legally distinct corporate bodies from the university, generally under control of trustees at least partially independent of the university administration (in some cases, the boards of trustees include representatives of both the affiliated university and of a sponsoring religious body), often (but not always) affiliated with a religious denomination, often in some sort of affiliation relationship with the university rather than being formally part of it. In NSW, a number of the older university colleges of the University of Sydney were established under Acts of Parliament (see e.g. St Paul's College, University of Sydney, established by the SAINT PAUL'S COLLEGE ACT 1854, likewise St John's College, University of Sydney established by SAINT JOHN'S COLLEGE ACT 1857, St Andrew's College, University of Sydney established under SAINT ANDREW'S COLLEGE ACT 1998, Sancta Sophia College, University of Sydney (SANCTA SOPHIA COLLEGE INCORPORATION ACT 1929). In NSW, see also the Universities and Colleges Lands Acts of 1924, 1957, 1966 and 1967. In Western Australia, university colleges are established under the UNIVERSITY COLLEGES ACT 1926. So, given the distinctive situation that university residential colleges operate under in Australia, I would suggest that many or most or all of them are notable, even if superficially similar institutions in other countries are judged not to be. SJK (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not mention the Wesley College Incorporation Act 1910 (NSW), Women's College Act 1902 (NSW), and in Victoria: the Trinity College Acts 1927,1957,1979, the University Colleges Lands Act 1960, and the Janet Clarke Hall Act 1961, and the Queen's College Land Act 1962. My point is, if a body has an Act of Parliament passed named after it, then it arguably is by that fact (among others) notable enough for Wikipedia. And if that is true for a number of members of a class of bodies, that fact in turn suggests that other members of that class (for whom that fact does not themselves hold) are also notable. SJK (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some halls of residence are notable does not mean that all are. As for the acts of parliament, I imagine that these were simply enabling acts rather than significant legislation.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2015 (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.