Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)

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 was keep. Sr13 03:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)[edit]

St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I propose that this article is deleted because there is no evidence of notability for this subject. Regular contributors to the article believe current sources listed in the article give evidence of notability. However, the only source that meets the requirements for proving notability is Walkley (1985). Username nought 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) New information: Walkley (1985) actually does not meet the requirements for proving notability. The book was published by the college's council and Walkley was a previous member and chairman of the council. Therefore it is not an independent source, therefore there are no sources cited in the article that meet the requirements for proving notability. I will discuss this more in the debate section of this page. Username nought 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of School-related deletions. -- Miss Mondegreen talk  21:52, June 9 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Extensively written, clear notability, referenced (although perhaps some more third part sources are needed). Recurring dreams 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article was brought to AfD in its very early days. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St marks college adelaide. The conclusion was keep and rename. It now a much better article and should be kept per Recurring dreams. --Bduke 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Recurring dreams. Notability asserted. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - referenced, notable, encyclopedic and generally well written - though I cannot take a neutral stance on this topic (see Talk: St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) for my contribs on the topic) ABVS1936 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Recurring dreams (interest declaration: I also am a regular contributor to the page)--Yeti Hunter 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well written, extensive referencing. Ozdaren 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to side with the nominator here. While I don't deny the fact the content is very well written and attempts have been made to source and site the information contained therein, the majority of the references are from self-published sources, and there is no real claim to notability other than that by association due to some of it's residents becoming successful in later life (None of which is sourced). It's a real piece of borderline Schoolcruft. Thewinchester (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further to this, there seems to be a few weasel words that have crept in from people boasting if you will about the article's subject. Does someone else have a few spare minutes to deal with them? Thewinchester (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd point out that the page in question commits none of the sins listed as "How to spot Schoolcruft". I have removed a few of the POV wordings as well.--Yeti Hunter 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Excessive citation of the school's student diary as a purported reliable source should be expanded to Excessive citation of the school's student diary or website... Garrie 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As GarrieIrons said, can't get any better than that. And as I said, borderline schoolcruft. And it's a good call on expansion of the essay, will look into it. Thewinchester (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Are you kidding? This is what you consider schoolcruft? First off, citing the school website a lot is not necessarily a bad thing. If you're using the school website to site things like activities and buildings etc. Many of these things aren't notable themselves, and therefore won't have outside citations, but it's necessary information for a school article. Not citing the school website means that the material is unsourced. Generally, school websites and newspapers are reliable sources about general school facts. So you can either not have that basic information, you can have it completely unsourced (quite possible OR), or you can source it with the school website and newspaper and other minor sources. That's NOT a sign of a problem. The only problem with the article is that it's slightly informal, it's braggish in areas, and there are a couple things that sound like quotes but aren't specified as quotes. While these problems are not insignificant, they are relatively minor ones. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:24, June 10 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Further to the accusation that the article has too much cruft, WP:CRUFT does in fact stipulate that containing cruft is not in and of itself a reason for deletion; rather, cruft articles tend to be poorly written and lacking sources. Whether or not you think this article is an example of cruft, you can't say it lacks sources or is poorly written.--Yeti Hunter 13:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Walkley reference establishes notability, while self published sources should be reduced and other references sort. :: maelgwn :: talk 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, one significant work is enough for notability; more RS can be used to further develop the subject. John Vandenberg 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the cruft. Excessive use of the colleges own website as a reference indicates that a lot of the material isn't worth including in an encyclopedia.Garrie 04:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, St. Ann's College (University of Adelaide), Lincoln College (University of Adelaide) and Aquinas College, Adelaide should also be deleted and merged with University of Adelaide, wouldn't you agree? ABVS1936 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes I would. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the sarcasm in the above comment was a little too subtle... I was merely stating an argumentum ad absurdum. You would claim, by that logic, that ALL residential college pages be deleted and merged with their respective university pages, as they themselves are not notable in their own right. When, in reality, most if not all of those colleges are only by the minutest detail affiliated with their "parent" universities (in Australia, I cannot speak for the rest of the world), and are certainly notable in their own right, providing that suitable references and sources can be found. ABVS1936 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with UofA is inappropriate, as the college is independent of the University and a good proportion of its residents attend other universities.--Yeti Hunter 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is well referenced, encyclopaedic and notable. I agree with ABVS1936; might I ask why this article has been first to have its notability questioned out of any of these? It's one of the most well written and cruftless of the lot! Ryan Oceros 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a note for this comment to the nomination for deletion at the top of this page. Walkley (1985) actually does not meet the requirements for proving notability. The book was published by the college's council and Walkley was a previous member and chairman of the council (see the Foreword on page 3). Therefore it is not an independent source, therefore there are no sources cited in the article that meet the requirements for proving notability. Considering there is no suitable evidence in the article to prove notability the article should definitely be deleted. Username nought 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, username nought, you have only given half the story. If you'd care to take a look here, you'll note that Walkley (1985) actually does satisfy the requirements for a reliable source, as it is relevant to the notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. So, learn. Ryan Oceros 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a reliable source but it is definitely not an independent source, which is required to provide evidence of notability. From the Wikipedia notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Username nought 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touche on that point, for now. However, the first paragraph on the page you have cited states that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense", which, sadly, you do not seem to have exercised since you first defaced the article. Ryan Oceros 05:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added another reference for the article: http://www.history.sa.gov.au/history/06HistoryWeekProgram.pdf. Apparently the History Society of South Australia thinks some of the buildings of St Mark's are of note. Ryan Oceros 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another: John La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972).Ryan Oceros 09:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another: C. Kerr, Archie, the Biography of Sir Archibald Grenfell Price (Melb, 1983)Ryan Oceros 10:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good to see that something productive has come of this--adding extra sources, etc. I'm more than a little confused as to why this was nominated. I believe not only that people really misunderstand the notability guidelines, but I agree with dreftymac's comments (Wikipedia talk:Notability#Wikipedia:Notability *Abolish It*) that there's absolutely no need for it. All of the reasons people say that the guideline is important are in fact covered elsewhere, in other policies and guidelines. And, something else that people misunderstand, it's a GUIDELINE. Do you realize how silly this is?? It's because of idiocy like this that IAR is policy. And I don't like IAR but which scenario here improves the encylopedia? By the way, those alumni ALL need sources. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:52, June 9 2007 (UTC)

    • I tend to disagree - notability is a good way of deciding whether or not a subject should have an article, there are many things that simply should not - in this case the guideline is reflecting common sense. Anyway, another discussion for another time and place. Orderinchaos 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are still no significant independent sources cited. Trivial mentions of the college in a couple of books is not suitable grounds for claiming notability. The fact that a decent independent source cannot be found when the notability of the subject is being questioned, indicates the college is not worthy of its own article. Username nought 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which is not the definition of notability. It is obvious from the many comments on this page that St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) is a notable entity/subject, and thus worthy of it's own article. These "trivial mentions" of the College in a number of books completely debunk your claim that this subject is not notable: the mere fact that it is mention by a number reliable sources and published materials from independant sources certify the notability of the subject. Ryan Oceros' contributed references are at the very crux of notability: a book about the creation of the Australian Constitution isn't notable nor reliable?!? Give it a rest! If, like John Vandenberg, you had taken any notice of WP:Good faith or even WP:Citing sources, you may have found many references in popular media referring to the college in one way or another - mostly from reliable and independant sources - and confirm, once again, the subject's notability. ABVS1936 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Nought, dude, did you read the book?? (if so, well done, it's only been a day or so since it was added as a ref). The cover of Archie is the portrait of Grenfell Price that hangs above the college High Table. It has significant coverage of the college, hardly trivial. Apparently some want it to be featured on the front page of The Australian before considering it notable.--Yeti Hunter 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though they would then probably argue that The Australian was not an independant, reliable, unbiased and NPOV source... (I kid) ABVS1936 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Alot of cruft and agree on incorrect referencing and sources. Notable bias perceived. DaveyChapman
  • Comment - The above user has six contributions to his name, five of them today, four of which are related to Flinders University Hall. I particularly like the complaint about ABVS1936 removing cruft from the flinders article. Bias? Certainly. Sock Puppet? Very probably.--Yeti Hunter 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my reply regarding that comment on the Flinders Uni Hall talk page. Meanwhile, I have made an effort (prior to that comment being made) to remove much of the biased information and "cruft", however as I am not and independant contributor I can only go so far. Could someone with perhaps a little more wik-perience and a lot more independance have a crack at it? I'd be most grateful if someone would. ABVS1936 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So this page has been here for 5 days, as per the Guidelines, and should be kept, as indicated by the majority of users who have comtributed here. Hence, I assume it's time to close this AfD page and make a decision. Could an Admin please do the honors and close this AfD so the ugly AfD template can be removed from the article page? Cheers, ABVS1936 12:09, 12 June 2007 (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/St._Mark%27s_College_(University_of_Adelaide)&oldid=1068840245"