Talk:Old Main (Texas State University)

Deletion proposal

Recently, there has been speculation and a nomination for this article to be deleted. I do believe, along with others, that Texas State University should have it's own wiki page covering their unique "old main" building.

By typing in "Old Main" in to the search bar, you will see that 20 or so results come up with Old Mains from many different schools. Prior to the creation of this article, Texas State had a place holder for their Old Main, however, no article.

If you look into other school's Old Mains, you will see that they do not put very much detail or information into their articles; this, however, does not mean it should be a valid reason for deletion.

May I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Main_(Knox_College)

.. I understand TreyGeek's concern for this article, nonetheless, I do not agree with him. A building, being more than 100 years old, should have it's own page; especially for a school that has so much history, as TreyGeek should know due to his User Page stating he attend the school for computer science.

My case is simple, and not hard to understand... Texas State University, like 20 other schools, deserves to have it's most recognized building, it's very own Wiki Page.

And TreyGeek, if you do not support my article, how come you do not work with me to make this article worthy of TreyGeek's standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utexasrox (talk • contribs)

As I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Main (Texas State University), I do not believe this building is notable enough for its own article. I believe there may be valuable information about this building. However, I believe this information should be placed in the "Campus" section of Texas State University-San Marcos. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with the first poster. TreyGeek, wouldn't you agree that any building which has been registered with the NRHP has gone through much debate and deemed notable to the ones who added it? I would think that if the building met their standards, as they are much higher than Wikipedia's, then it would easily meet Wikipedia's. I too believe that this building is righteous enough for having a Wikipedia site. I will add on, try to find and add resources, and add pictures to help save this article. Utexasrox, please sign you name next time, and thank you for caring about the university.

TrainerTomlol (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if there is sufficient information about a building then it deserves its own article. However, I am unsure if there is enough information that can be found to source a full article on the building. If I'm wrong and there is a lot of information and the article won't be stubby, I'm all for it.

My initial arguments against this article stemmed from the creator copy/pasting material from Texas State's website and slapping it in here without citing sources. I knew of no other information on the building and that's why I put it up as WP:PROD and then WP:AfD when then PROD tag was removed. Again, if there is information about the building to create a decent article, great! If there isn't a lot of information, the University article would be a better place for it, in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely; I understand your initial argument. I understand that you do not concur with the initial poster. I never saw the original post, nevertheless, I do not believe that the current article written has been copy and pasted on this page. As stated before, I believe that a major factor making this building eligible is the fact that it has been registered with the NRHP. Likewise, it looks to be like others agree with me (four, last time I checked) on the page that you submitted for the site to be deleted. Obviously, we do not agree, but, it looks like you are personally out to have this deleted, of which, I do not understand. TrainerTomlol (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Again, if there is information about the building to create a decent article, great!" I think you missed part of my previous comment. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But you are talking like there isn't an article currently created (I am referring to "...to create a decent article"). Are you saying that the current article has "... information about the building to create a decent article"? TrainerTomlol (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time I requested the deletion I was under the impression that the building was relatively unremarkable and lacked sufficient WP:SOURCEs to qualify it as being WP:NOTABLE. In the official deletion discussion I have seen people offer up suggestions for additional information; I have not had time to look at those sources. In looking at the current state of the article, I also see that it is need of copy editing and correcting. At the moment, I unfortunately, do not have enough time to sit down and do all of the research needed to flesh out the article and to make all of the necessary copy edits. I am currently attempting to do it piecemeal in a sandbox so that should I complete all of the work I can make a single edit to the main space article. If someone comes along in the meantime and does the work, I'm all for it.

Again, and for the last time on this topic, if there is sufficient information that allows this article to be a decent, well written, informational article, I'm all for it. At this point, I would rather discuss how to improve the article as opposed to my views of the notability of the article, now or in the past. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)