Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durdham Hall

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 delete. Mr.Z-man 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durdham Hall

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Durdham Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable student residence. Nuttah68 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete building without historical or cultural significance. No reliable sources. i kan reed (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without this, the list of halls of residence of the University of Bristol would be incomplete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • q and dropping a non-notable building making a list of halls of residence at a University be incomplete is a bad thing because... ? If there isn't extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, then it fails WP:N... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - your mum Roflcopter176 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Delitionists can get a bit carried away sometimes Francium12 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This does not explain why it should be an article. I don't mind if there's a reason to keep the article, but "people who want to delete it are irrational" does not sound like a legitimate reason. i kan reed (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chill out. It's only an ecyclopedia 137.222.229.74 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


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.