Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Leo's College, University of Queensland

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 redirect to Residential colleges of the University of Queensland. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Leo's College, University of Queensland[edit]

St Leo's College, University of Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people. Nothing obvious in google or google news except for passing mentions such as [1]. PROD removed by SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth mentioning that Residential colleges of the University of Queensland is also currently up up for AFD for lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as per Lankiveil. The article as it stands does not establish notability. It appears that the AfD for the more general article will fail, so this one should be trimmed to the bare, verifiable essentials and folded in until such time that it passes the test for independent notability. SeaphotoTalk 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Information on the St Leo's page reflects the history of the institution. It should not be deleted

This conversation is now closed. Please remove this template and close the AFD discussion.

Please remove the AFD notice at the top of the article entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longlongjohn (talk • contribs)

This is not true, so please don't let the above dissuade any interested editor in providing an opinion. The AfD will continue until it is closed by an uninvovled administrator. For more information on how the process works, please see WP:CLOSEAFD SeaphotoTalk 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't think there is enough motivation for this college to have its own page. I boldly deleted some very dubious outsourced information. If someone comes up with more reliable sources I would be happy to see the page restated. Francis Bond (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you say independent university college do you mean that it grants degrees? If reliable sources to that effect are added to the page, I'll withdraw the AfD nomination immediately. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not grant degrees, it is a residential college, somewhat analogous to the American frat. It is independently owned and controlled, but its students attend UQ. I agree these can often be borderline, but I think they have some inherent notability similar to the consensus on high schools.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, WP:Notability (schools) failed, leaving us to fall back on WP:ORG and this doesn't meet that criteria, in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. Yeti Hunter, Australian university colleges are residential institutions and do not deliver any accredited courses or award degrees. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you are going to consider this article for deletion based on the fact that residential university colleges are not notable enough, you are also going to have to mark for deletion all of the University of Sydney Colleges, as well as the inidvidual entries for the residential colleges at Cambridge and Oxford. Othewise, it gives rise to double standards. To avoid any doubt, here are the links to some of them:

The solution may be to improve this St Leo's College article, but not to delete it with at least attempting to give it "sources". If it doesn't appear notable, its because it hasnt been sourced with references, not because it isnt notable. Otherwise, the Sydney, Cambridge and Oxford ones will all have to go as well. Puckpetspot (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC). — Puckpetspot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The question is not (and has never been) "are residential university colleges notable?" the question is (and has always been) "has this particular entity received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per the WP:GNG and WP:ORG?". (I just tagged Wesley College, University of Sydney). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Wesley College, University of Sydney was tagged, why not The Women's College? Puckpetspot (talk 1:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the tag from "notability" to "refimprove", since The Women's College similarly turns up mobs of sources on NLA (here). Unreferenced article ≠ unreferencable article. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the University of Melbourne Colleges, such as Newman College (University of Melbourne)? And what about Campion Hall, Oxford? Why have these not been marked for deletion, if this recommendation for St Leo's deletion is valid??? Puckpetspot (talk) 3:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, particularly where it says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - I am inviting you to keep to a standard practice which seems to have been adopted with respect to the University of Queensland residential colleges and start the deletion process for these as well. Puckpetspot (talk) 3:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of no standard policy on this. I'll not go looking for more stuff to delete until my current AfD's are finished, but I have some active PRODs I may nominate for AfD if they're declined. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are not notable sources within the article, does not mean or imply that notables sources do not exist. If notable sources are included in the article, per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, the article should not be deleted. Perhaps therefore, those who recommend deletion should instead take it upon themselves to improve the articles, rather than just criticising them and recommending they be deleted. A very large large number of sources exist for this and all other University of Queensland residential colleges. It is just a matter of finding them and bringing the article up to a standard where it is not a target for deletion. Perhaps if energy went into improving a body of knowledge rather than attempting to eradicate it all together, the article would have been 'properly' sourced and up to 'standards' by now. Perhaps this can be summed up with reference to WP:BOLD . Puckpetspot (talk) 1:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, the basic point about WP:Notability (schools) was explicitly making sporting results and the like sufficient for GNG. Technically, such reports would satisfy it anyway. FWIW, the NLA archive is rich with such sources: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=St+Leo%27s+college -Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also remind you that you can't just say "plenty of sources exist, go find them". Responsibility for sourcing lies solely with the editor adding material.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other opinions as to whether the sources I've linked to above are enough to satisfy GNG?-Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. This article is worth saving. Heaps of available references to satisfy notablility concerns.LongJohn_Sock (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very positive. Add the refs to the article and I'll withdraw the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of book related references and sources available as well for the keen editor to reference as well. For example, see "Building a Palace; a comparison between St Edmund's College, Cambridge, and St Leo's College, University of Queensland, Dr Dominic Katter, Barrister-at-Law". See also "http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1391443" ClonkJogsHon (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More references for the keen editor to help improve this article
http://www.campusdaily.com.au/read_university_news.php?title=australia_day_honours_to_uq_community_members_55879
http://www.uqrugby.com/index.php?page=220&ssid=220&mid=2
http://www.stjohnscollege.edu.au/rector.html
http://www.uq.edu.au/graduatecontact/web-exclusives/colleges-mark-colourful-history/
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4607159
BeetleNavy (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2012 (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_Leo%27s_College,_University_of_Queensland&oldid=1077706106"