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. I have noted the keep rationale of Arxiloxos. This is essentially a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which is not normally given any weight in deletion discussions. Other articles might show community consensus for the inclusion of such topics if those articles had been through some kind of quality review (FA, GA, AFD, Peer review etc) but no such evidence has been presented. Spinning Spark 15:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Brigham Young University residence halls

List of Brigham Young University residence halls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear to me why we should have an article on this. We wouldn't do the same for a city or village with lots of large residential buildings (apartments), even though regional newspapers will often discuss the start or finish of a new highrise or other somewhat larger building. But when they are on the grounds or belonging to a university, they somehow become notable (without being historic buildings, like in Oxford or so). I'm wondering where we should draw the line, and for me this crosses it, but it's worth a wider discussion to see how others feel about this. Fram ( talk) 08:05, 18 November www2015 (UTC)

• Keep residence serve the purposes of the university and are inherently a way to understand university purposes. They are notable enough to be covered in general histories and to have a book published about them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The purpose of the university is to educate students and to do research. Many things "serve" that purpose, but this list is in no way needed to understand that purpose. As for the "book published about them", do you mean "Brigham Young University: The First 100 Years."? That's not a book about the residence halls, and more importantly is published by the University, so not an independent source and not an indication of notability. If you mean another book, please make it explicit. Fram ( talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Johnpacklambert: Please familiarize yourself with the GNG and WP:V before continuing to create articles and vote in AfDs. This is a similar issue to the sourcing of mid-level LDS officials: a book commissioned by a college can't be used for notability of the college, or parts within the college. Also, remember that it's in-depth coverage: being name-dropped someplace doesn't necessarily convey notability. p b p 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The university is obviously notable. It is also obvious that we should include information about the residential facilities of any university. The real question is whether that information should be included in sufficient detail that a separate subarticle becomes appropriate as a spinout for space and size reasons. Per Category:University and college dormitories in the United States, it's evident that we have loads and loads of similar lists and articles on this topic, expressing a general consensus that this sort of content is appropriate. Singling out BYU is unwarranted as far as I can see.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • One has to start somewhere. This one isn't "singled out", it's the first one I came across. And no, it is not "obvious that we should include information about the residential facilities of any university", residential facilities are not an essential part of a university. In many cases, a short mention on the main university article will be more than sufficient. The residential facilities themselves have to be notable enough to warrant a separate article. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I agree with Fram and Purplebackpack89. There does not seem to be significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources. Of course BYU likes to talk about itself. But that doesn't help the notability of the topic any. This kind of unwarranted detail really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It reminds me of the Transformers articles that used to come through here every few days. They, too, had many sources and dedicated fans who argued that they inherited notability from the franchise, but those articles were still deleted. Someone could start an official wiki at Wikia if they wanted, but it doesn't belong here until it satisfies the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No indication by way of sources that these residential buildings are notable. Just belonging to a university or its campus does not make ordinary apartment buildings magically notable.  Sandstein  20:36, 11 December 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.