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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings[edit]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings (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)

Listing without secondary sources; One or two are separately notable and have articles; a few should be and are included on the article for the campus, but such places as "Administration Drive Garage"do not belong even as content in any WP article. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator's response. This page supplements the University of Maryland, Baltimore County's main article with additional information about the campus. As a student at the university, I have taken up the opportunity to expand the university's wikipedia presence so that it follows the similar models of other local universities in the Baltimore and Washington, DC area.

  Please view similar models I used to create this article:

• University of Maryland, College Park Campus Buildings
• Towson University buildings and structures

  Seeing that these articles have remained uncriticized for potential deletion, I do not see the justification for deletion. Additionally, I would also like to state that this article is still under construction. I plan on expanding the sources for this page, as well as increasing the amount of information as it comes available. Scott218 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may be that those should also be deleted by the nominator's rationale, or it may be that those have different merit than this list. Either way, the nominator was not obligated to do anything about those articles in order to list this one for deletion.

    Can you locate any secondary sources that discuss these buildings, either individually or as a group? postdlf (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks, Scott218, for your work to build Wikipedia. The big problem with this at the moment, however, is that Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, reliable sources, and weighting aspects of a subject mean that Wikipedia only covers aspects of a subject according to the prominence given to those aspects in the body of secondary, independent sources about the subject. It's ok to link to school websites to verify things like addresses, construction dates, and other basic information but we need secondary sources to first establish that the buildings (or any subject) is the sort of content we want to include. It's a concept that can take some getting used to. If you'd like to talk more about this or ask questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - This is going to be a tough one to source effectively enough to justify a stand-alone article with the amount of content it has, I think. Considering the amount of work that went into this, maybe WP:USERFYing is a good way to go to preserve the work and give Scott218 or others longer than the duration of this AfD to work on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a proper kind of list-article to have, a good investment to help to keep out unnecessary articles on each separate residence dormitory and each academic building. At AFD, we should try to avoid causing more AFDs, more often, by ourselves opening list-articles as substitutes. It is way better to nurture a list-article when some/many items are probably notable, some are marginal, some seem unworthy of separate articles. Avoid future fights about whether the campus center building is not notable, while the library is, etc. And why does Harvard University have its dormitories covered, but not my school, etc. Note here it is apparent that several of the buildings are individually notable, as evidenced by their having articles...their references should be considered to add to the one reference in this article already. Other single buildings may meet individual notability criteria, but can just be covered in this list-article, hopefully, with redirects to their entries.

I didn't check but I assume the creating editor is relatively new, as they didn't know how to "name" a reference and use it repeatedly, instead of duplicating. (I demonstrated how, just now, in the article.) The article should be developed to include some descriptions, so as to be able to substitute for separate articles. Start with adding brief descriptions/summaries for the buildings that have separate articles, and bringing in their references where appropriate. Assume good faith. I will watch and help some. This should NOT be userfied, as that is a dead waste which does not encourage other editors to develop. That would not allow readers to find their way to the article and stay to add material. Also calling for it to be userfied and developed is admitting already that the topic is acceptable. I think that wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is the relevant essay...a valid topic should not be deleted by AFD...tag the article for development, perhaps, but the article does not have to be developed during/before end of the AFD. So the article is okay as is; it is certainly a notable/acceptable as a topic for a list-article. See many more examples: List of Syracuse University buildings, List of Harvard College freshman dormitories, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories, many more, with many in Category:University and college dormitories in the United States or Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. Good start. Keep up the good work. Assume good faith. --doncram 18:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tend to agree with DGG the nominating editor that "such places as 'Administration Drive Garage' do not belong", but that is a content comment that could be made at the Talk page of the article, is not reason for AFD. I see DGG often opening AFDs but not participating ever after that, which is a tad irksome...to the nom, it would be nice if you could please participate further and acknowledge some merit here or defend why the Keep arguments don't hold water in your view. --doncram!~

doncramI propose articles I think questionable for community discussion. I don't usually have a strong emotional or ideological commitment to removing them, and am quite content fort the community to decide. I think I have some skill at spotting those that may need discussion; I don't think I have any special insight into what should be kept or deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Sometimes I deliberately nominate of the boundaries to try to get the community to think about the where the boundaries should be. Some people work differently--it is good to have multiple approaches. But if you ever think I've made enough of a misjudgment that I ought to withdraw than afd, ping me. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list article should have been tagged for clean-up rather than nominated for deletion. This is an example of wasting time and effort in an AFD process, when the effort could have been spent on fixing the article. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." I searched for sources about the subject here but did not find much about the topic. If sources can be found about "University of Maryland, Baltimore County, campus buildings", this should be kept as a stand-alone list. Otherwise, it probably should be merged to a parent article like University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Cunard (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (albeit selectively) to/with University of Maryland, Baltimore County as per @Cunard. Quis separabit? 12:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely on the basis I don't want to see this become a precedent for other self-sourced publicity about university campus real estate. This gives undue weight to the intricate detail of the university, which in any other situation would be removed. The key buildings can be (and generally are) described in the main article. Arguments such as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "it's got a lot of content" don't cut the mustard for me. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sourced to a primary source, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If you want to look at University buildings, there's an official website for that. Would support a very selective merge to- adding a couple of notable buildings to the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (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.