Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Quadrangle

Memorial Quadrangle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge into Harkness Tower

Memorial Quadrangle

This is a stub article about a single building on the campus of Yale University. The building in itself is not notable, and the article is unlikely to be expanded. (Any information would likely be put in the article of one of the residential colleges that the building contains. Frankly, I think the existance of articles on Yale colleges is questionable, but I'll leave that for another time.) Even if this were a Yale encyclopedia, Memorial Quadrangle would hardly be worth an article. Remes 05:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Do not delete Remes is totally wrong. Residential colleges have distinct histories, as does the Memorial Quadrangle. It is certainly notable. CoolGuy 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Could be a good article with some more content. - SimonP 07:28, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I just added some more data. How does it look now? CoolGuy 08:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Yale University. Everybody thinks their beloved building is notable, get real! AtonX 09:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. --JuntungWu 10:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Comment. User AtonX has a point. I observe these days a user creating a fantastic number of article about his beloved environment but it's mostly void of interest. He, for example, describes all the sections of a housing estate (here), generates weired categories (here) Is there a process or some rules to say please add content not beloved but void subjects ? Or... I am just wrong about potential articles in the wikipedia ? --Gtabary 10:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I feel this is too granular a level of detail to be useful. You could write a thousand pages about Yale, all of which would be factually correct and could go into a great amount of detail, but it wouldn't change the case that the majority of those pages would be of no use whatsoever on their own, and many merely repeating the same information in a different form. This should be merged into an article describing the campus buildings or colleges on a larger scale. The articles on both the colleges linked to from this one are also stubs that merely repeat information in this article, so they should be merged too (e.g. into Residential Colleges at Yale or somesuch article. Average Earthman 14:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's been expanded since my original vote, but I feel between then Memorial Quadrangle, Harkness Tower, Saybrook College and Branford College make one good article. Certainly the latter two should be merged, but that's a separate vote. Average Earthman 12:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, except that another university's memorial quad will break out later. Universities, of course, are unique institutions with individual characters. Additionally, important sites on a campus have histories. However, very, very few are known outside of their campuses. Perhaps the Old Well at UNC or the arch at UGA or that rock at Clemson, but each of these universities might, and only might, have one object or site that is so famous that it's known outside of its university context and therefore need to be discussed outside of the university. On the other hand, this material (and all those things at Tulane University that are dedicated (about half the campus)) should be discussed at Yale University#Campus. Geogre 15:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• i think it should be merged because if we had a article on every yale building, information would be too widely dispersed to be of easy reference to the casual reader 206.176.103.66 17:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Marginal keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - belongs in a bigger article about Yale buildings or the Yale campus. Note to Average Earthman: Wiki's not paper. Note to Remes: I failed to find "Yale encyclopedia" on this page describing what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an everything encyclopedia. Also, the picture is a copyvio, so I took care of that. Chuck 21:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Drop the 'wikipedia isn't paper' rubbish, it's not the point. Oh, and will you be contributing to the bandwidth costs? Just because Wikipedia isn't paper, that doesn't mean we can happily witter on at great length on the tiniest minutae of every subject over a thousand articles, when one article giving an overview of the topic is far, far more useful - quicker for the reader, and wastes less bandwidth sending the data. Yes, Wikipedia isn't paper, but that doesn't mean people are going to be happy to have to keep clicking on a hundred different links to get the information they're after. Average Earthman 10:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I thought that the point of Wikipedia is to create individual pages for subtopics when they become too detailed for a main page on the topic.CoolGuy 00:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: This is a serious article. There is publicly available information on it, and it is notable. CoolGuy 01:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• At the very least merge with the article on Harkness Tower. Yale is big-time notable and the Harkness Tower is its signature building, so that's sort of reasonable, but there's no reason for separate articles on the Harkness Tower and on the quadrangle which contains it. I'd rather see all of this material in a single unified article on Yale's architecture. I notice, however, that we do have separate articles on many (all?) of the Oxford colleges, such as Balliol. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see every reason for separate articles on all the Cambridge and Oxford colleges, but not parts of university campuses. In the past, each college of Oxford, at least, had its own politics, its own character, so a kid who went into Balliol got a Balliol education, rather than an Oxford one. A Christ's Church boy was going to be a particular type of Tory, for example. I don't think any American university has anything like that kind of independence in its colleges, because none of them developed as literally privately established and chartered schools. Geogre 01:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I admit I'm impressed with the work that CoolGuy has done on the article. Chuck's point is well taken, and I suppose there's no harm in having every building on every college campus have their own article, but I doubt it's the most sensible way of arranging things. Comments made by others that there be a "buildings at Yale" article (or, I'd even suggest a "buildings" section of the Yale article) certainly make sense to me. Dpbsmith: (First let me point out that I didn't VfD the college articles, although I did raise questions abotu them. So this is something of a digression.) Although Yale colleges (and Harvard house) are modeled after Oxbridge colleges, they're very different. One is that they're not autonomous corporate entities the way their English counterparts. Second, because they're newer and their universities have been less dominant in the creation of American culture, they're less historically relevant. Balliol, as Balliol, had a significant impact on the creation of the British government and empire; nothing similar can be said for Saybrook College, for example. Remes 01:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't make myself very clear. I understand the point you and Geogre made... I was just thinking out loud. I imagine that Oxford corresponds more closely to something like the Five Colleges consortium of Western Massachusetts than it does to any single American university. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Under what possible scenario would we be deleting this again? Because it's too... "granular"? This has obviously well expanded beyond the realm of the main Yale article, which is a good thing(tm). I completely disagree with Remes' reasoning for deletion and give this the strongest vote to keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't say delete as it's too granular, I said merge. Average Earthman 12:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Shouldn't be merged into Yale, which is already 31K. Please check article lengths before suggesting such merges. - Nunh-huh 05:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No need to be snippy. Chuck 05:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No need to see snippiness where there is none. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• What's the proper procedure for removing the vote for deletion tag from the corresponding page, other than simply deleting it? CoolGuy 05:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wait it out. Most people here are sensible enough to realize the notability of this content and that it has simply outgrown its roots. It will survive. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be an interesting enough building, but the article needs more pictures. / up+land 09:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, merging with the article on the tower is probably a good idea. Perhaps a larger merge with other Yale buildings if there are any which would gain from being treated in the same context. / up+land 10:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep -leigh (φθόγγος) 12:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 19:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Merge with Harkness Tower. Paul August 21:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Pedant 03:41, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.