Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campus of Kyushu University

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 keep. While there is clearly a consensus that work needs to be done on the article, there is not a consensus to delete this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Campus of Kyushu University

Campus of Kyushu University (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)

unreferenced, seems to be made up entirely of trivial information and pictures, with little to merit an article Jac16888 ^Talk 13:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Have to agree with the nominator. Any really useful and properly sourced information could be added to the Kyushu University article, but this article has way too much incoherent and unsourced trivia. --DAJF (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Maidashi ryokuchi created by the same machine translator probably needs a revisit too. --DAJF (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi, more than half supports me, not you, see it.I am troubled the possibility of reprisals.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hot cake does not seem to have a very good grasp of English, and has created several articles with poor translations, I've tried before to suggest they would be better off editing on the Japanese Wikipedia but it seems my advice was not taken--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep.This article was added source and references later, by Hot cake syrup (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)), see it. It is a official document of Kyushu University. And machine translation system was not used. --Hot cake syrup (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hot cake, please do not take this as an insult, but your English is just too poor for this Wikipedia, why not edit in your first language [1]?
• 英語版ウィキペディアへの投稿はいつでも歓迎いたしますが、残念ながら今回Hot cake syrupさんに執筆いただいた英文は英語版ウィキペディアの水準を満たしておりません。もしよろしければ、日本語版ウィキペディアの方へ投稿していただければ幸いです。ウィキペディア･プロジェクトへの参加ありがとうございます。--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you. I think deep inside your kind man, but you just doesn't know how to express it.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford,Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...so on.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Potentially notable, but unfortunately the author's style of writing is not understandable; any rewrite would be a completely new article, so keeping-until-rewriting wouldn't be of any benefit. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Partisan canvassing by article author

The author of the article nominated for deletion has been warned for inappropriately canvassing editors (here and here), who coincidentally voted "Keep" in an AfD of another article created by the same author. --DAJF (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked wise opinion in my note for native trusty friends, it is not a case for concern. Actually I cheese off DAJF's stalking behavior. Ah… See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi --Hot cake syrup (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot cake syrup (talk • contribs)

• Keep - features on Cultural Property registers, ie "notable" (have added the RS) - and also less of the ad hominem; I don't know whether the article could be organized as a table (or several, one per campus): Building - Function - Construction Date - Architect - Area - Comments - Image (or something like that); presumably the User was intending to fill out the other campus sections before this distraction; also, don't know whether the sections could be related to this list of campuses? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is it notable? Except for the fact that these buildings are part of the university why are they important? It's just a list of buildings with information such as square footage and age, what I would call trivial at best--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support Maculosae tegmine lyncis. Every Universities has its own history, like the Parthenon means ancient Greek civilization, Colosseum means ancient Roma, the buildings are exactly what the history itself.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There might be just enough references and information here to maybe meet the minimum requirement for WP:GNG, but the article will need to be entirely rewritten, most of the article appears to be a list of statistical information and random images, hardly resembling a proper article, If it can be rewritten into a series of paragraphs with specific sections proclaiming its history, achievements and notability there is a chance it could be salvaged, but as of now it is on the fine line between usefull and pointless, I am mostly neutral. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I should like to thank you for your useful proposals and agree with entirely re-formation, please I would be grateful for your support. Thanks you.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There is a likely argument for notability based on the notability of the university and the fact some of the structures are designated cultural properties (though the "The Third Residential Complex for Foreigners" cited in the lede is not yet included in the list of buildings). There are also many "Campus of" articles on Wikipedia, some of which, such as Campus of the University of Arkansas, are even more sketchy than this (and that article has been around for six years). There is also the poorly titled Constructions of the University of Tokyo, which in spirit is essentially like this article. Such precedents are themselves not grounds for keeping the article, but it underlines that probably the primary argument offered by others against the article is that the English is bad. Yes, it is, but bad writing--which is nevertheless comprehensible--is not listed as one of the reasons in WP:DEL-REASON. I have tried to work on Hot Cake Syrup's articles in the past (including trying to change the title of this article), and would second others in encouraging that user to refrain from adding such long articles until he or she is more confident with English. But for the time being, this is a comprehensible article on a basically notable subject. It just needs work. Michitaro (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is a very major university, and it is highly appropriate that there be a separate article--much better than what we sometimes see, an attempt to write an article on every possible building. Combination articles like this are to be encouraged. Additional sources would be desirable, but they're not ones I would be able to find. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 May 2012 (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.