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 delete by clear consensus. However, rather than actually deleting, I've redirected this to La Salle University instead, in order to preserve history in case some of this content wants to be merged there. Friday (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: First, there are multiple copyright violations on the page. The template on the upper right contains an image that is a copyright violation. Much of the texts of the article are direct or very near direct copy/paste work from [1] and other halls in the list on the left of that page. Second, from Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas "Please think twice before creating an article about any of the following: ...Your dormitory (unless it's on the Historic Register)". There is nothing remarkable about this dormitory that is highlighted by the article. The creator of the article has been asking for time to flesh out this article (and a number of other articles from the La Salle University Campus). The inception of this article was a week ago. That's enough time. --Durin 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm the creator. Lasallefan 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit that while I did generate the article a week ago, I really haven't worked on it until yesterday. I would like more time to complete it.
• Also, the picture was a copyright violation (I'm fairly new in regards to pictures, sorry), but it has been removed and hopefully I'll put a new (legal) one up soon.
• This article was certainly not copy/pasted. I did take information from the site Durin mentions, but those are the facts of the structure. You can't do anything about that.
• There is precedence for this article, as many universities have buildings listed on Wikipedia. I understand that doesn't necessarily make it right, but it's at least of note. Ther are a lot of residence halls on this site.
• I have already received some feedback in support of others on my talk page. Durin HIMSELF actually noted previously (and I think this is an important point), "My own personal take is that if we can have articles on obscure Pokémon characters, certainly it is worthwhile to have articles on buildings where literally thousands of people have lived over the years, such as residence halls." user:Uppland added "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus provided they are of some historical or architectural interest".
• What Durin is not grasping, in his move to make this an AFD, is that to students, alumni, and prospective students, this complex is very important and has a long history. Even more importantly, people involved (or who want to be involved) with these buildings can find this information extremely helpful and relevant. Just because individuals outside the univeristy/city don't KNOW of the building, doesn't mean that it isn't notable or important.

• In general, there are a lot worse articles online than this one, and this is notable and informative for many people Lasallefan 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not like being misquoted. I did not write "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus provided they are informative" What I did write was: "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus, provided they are of some historical or architectural interest".[2] What you left out makes all the difference. up+l+and 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies, your right. But yes, that was said. Lasallefan 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENTYou are also misinterpreting me. I am not asserting that since we have article on minor Pokémon characters, we can have articles on non-notable residence halls. I don't think we should have individual articles on minor Pokémon characters either. This also goes to what you mentioned above; the mere presence of other articles on Wikipedia of similar nature or of articles with subjectively less importance does not grant status to the existence of another article in a similar vein.
• Further, you can state facts about a place, but you are not permitted to use direct verbiage from a copyright holder to represent those facts. Taking the St. Albert Hall element of the article we're discussing, I'll bold all text that is a direct copy of [3]:

“

Built in 1953, and named after Saint Albert the Great, St. Albert hall is the second hall in the main area of CAJH. St. Albert was originally built to accommodate a total of 126 students and 12 faculty members. Brother Gerald Fitzgerald, a La Salle University Accounting Professor, still resides in a suite on the first floor of St. Albert. He is the only Christian Brother currently living in the residence halls (Two on-campus Christian Brothers Residences house 15 of the 21 La Salle Christian Brothers). St. Albert includes singles, doubles and economy triples, co-ed living by floor, laundry facilities, and a shared bathroom & shower area. There are 23 residents to each of the three floors.

”

• It is blatantly obvious that text was either cut/pasted or re-typed to match what the cited webpage contains. Either way, it is a direct copyright violation. An alternative representation that would contain the same facts, without the copyright problems:

“

Built in 1953, and named after Saint Albert the Great, St. Albert hall is the second hall in the main area of CAJH. As designed and originally built, St. Albert accommodated a total of 126 students and 12 faculty members. Accounting professor Brother Gerald Fitzgerald resides in this hall, and is the only such christian brother resident in a student residence hall as of 2006. St. Albert features single, double and economy triple rooms. Men and women both live in the hall, segregated by floor, with 23 residents per floor.

”

• The re-write contains no such copyright violations. It takes more time to write non-copyrighted text, but if you want to contribute here you need to do this. The copyright violations remain throughout the article and need to be excised. --Durin 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: some of the above was corrected, but I put back in the removed comments for clarity. Lasallefan has since corrected his misquote. Friday (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, and, as time permits, delete most of the other dorm articles also. One bad article does not justify another. Yes, the existance of buildings is verifiable to anyone with a phone book, but the mere existance of a thing does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. There have been attempts to discuss what would make a particular building notable, but we have no guidelines on this that I'm aware of. If historians or architects heavily write about a particular building, reliable sources demonstrating this should be abundant. In absense of anything like that, delete. Let's let universities do their marketing on their own websites. Friday (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• More comments: As for the "it's important to some people", I heard this exact argument the other day. A woman made an article saying that her husband was the greatest person in the whole world. It was speedy deleted, and she was insulted that someone would say her husband is "not notable"- after all, he's the sweetest, most lovable man in the world. My house, my car, and my dog are all imporant to me, but they're very clearly not suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. As a general rule, things that are considered "local interest" only are not included. Friday (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Notability_is_not_fame_nor_importance. Uncle G 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Yes but that woman is ONE person were talking about tens-of-thousands of people who have LIVED in this complex, hundreds of thousands who have had direct contact with it, and certainly millions of people who at least know/knew about it. Most of which, by the way, are NOT local. Lasallefan 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only evidence that they deemed it notable is if they created and wrote non-trivial published works of their own about it. If this university building is notable, there will be non-trivial works about it that were created and published by someone other than the university. Please cite one or more such works. Currently, this article contains zero citations. Uncle G 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT I see what your saying Durin. I will reference, AND completely go back and re-edit each portion of this article (if this article passes on its other merits). But there's too much random talk here...let's get back to the main point of this article here. Let's try to limit comments to "should this article be deleted?". This is a discussion of three people regarding problems that need to be addressed Lasallefan 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but rename to La Salle university! Because more than one university has a north dorms. I mentioned this in the discussion page (which has already been deleted, thank you so much). Moderator: As for the paraphrased context and stolen pictures, simply revert these additions that got the article into some scrutiny. I do live in the area and would be more than willing to upload some pictures that are not in violation of any copyright. Lasallefan: why ADD content that is already summarized on other websites? I don't think it's what wikipedia is about, to imitate already existing websites, pictures and text and all. If not illegal, it certainly is not constructive. It serves no purpose. If you rely less on the copy and paste functions, and more on the creative side, your pages will not be deleted. There certainly are unique aspects of north dorms community life that can be explored here. delinodeshields 3:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unique aspects of the community? You're saying there are things people who live in this dorm do that nobody does in any other dorm anywhere? I really, seriously doubt it. Sorry. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have never thought school buildings, except for rare exceptions, to be notable. School dorms aren't really of any more encyclopedic interest than any other apartment complex. Wickethewok 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual school buildings usually aren't encyclopedically notable, and dorms especially aren't. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment: A non-trivial, public work has been written about it. I have enclosed the reference. Lasallefan 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A non-trivial, public work has been written about the North Dorms at La Salle University, Lasallefan? Unfortunately, in the references section, I can only locate the school's website and a book about La Salle University. When I see a non-trivial, public work written about the North Dorms, I'll switch my vote to keep. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentIt's WITHIN the document. And, no, I can't find you a book strictly on North Dorms. But I can't find a book on A LOT of buildings on Wikipedia. Lasallefan 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable building. Seriously, only 50 years old, no major architectural awards, no well-known cultural references, neither the setting of nor set of any major films, not the subject of any publications... so far as I can see, it's just another dorm.
  If there are lots of other articles like this, then they should be deleted too. There are, I believe, clear precedents. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per stated above. No one cares about the North Dorms, nor is it notable in any way. Pacdude 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, entirely non-notable building. Sandstein 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is not a college brochure. Geoffrey Spear 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously NN αChimp ^laudare 00:12, 29 July 2006 (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.