Talk:Bridges Hall

Question of Notability

I'm aware that the page was deemed "not notable". However, when looking at the records, the page was removed at a time when there was little on it and there is a lot of information we have that I believe would make it notable. Does this make a difference? Exodus3076 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably not. There is usually a feeling that it would be unusual for individual halls to be notable. There are exceptions for buildings with a more extensive history, such as Wantage. But most discussions about most halls come to the conclusion that there isn't justification for a separate article. If you can come up with sources that are reliable and not self-published then perhaps it can be revisited. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

JCR Election Section

The following section has been written without any regard for Wikipedia's policies on Neutrality or Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox and it isn't a place to protrude any political agendas or viewpoints.

Furthermore, the section itself does not in essence increase the readers understanding of the subject at heart. A section on the JCR itself would be warranted, but a section simply on one election with the aim of putting forward the writers viewpoint, much like a blog, is not.

Therefore, the section is removed. I will replace it this weekend with a section on the JCR itself, use the website and other sources to create a brief history section, and essentially, increase the quality of the article under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.

Agent Blightsoot 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

how do you propose incorporating the election results in to the page or do you propose a separate page for University of Reading 2007 elections including all hall and the union elections?--90.240.33.29 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 90.240.33.29: Surely such items are unworthy of note to the wiki community in general. Notability is your best guide to working out if something is worth the addition. Happy editing. Yakultisnice

Not vandalism as you claimed it was most of the Information refers directly too the hall and the edit summarry is missleading. I think that the whole section is entierly worth of entry on to wiki and should be improved not removed.--134.225.177.27 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no concensus here.--134.225.235.40 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. If something is not notable enough, then it should not appear. There is no prequisite for results to appear in an article that really isn't that notable anyway.

Several editors have brought this point to your attention, meaning, that its consensus to not appear in the article. Blatantly going against consensus when not justified by policy is vandalism.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment is where you can go if you really think you have a case. But if you do continue, then its likely someone else will come along and get this article protected, deleted for being too troublesome when it isn't that notable or you personally will end up being blocked. Roger Danger Field 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone is threatning an annon and that is uncivilised wiki conduct.--134.225.177.197 10:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not threatening you good sir. If I was threatening you, I would have made it blatantly obvious.

Giving helpful advice and information on what other Wikipedians often do in these situations, isn't threatening in the slightest.

Perhaps you need to just get out more often? Roger Danger Field 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)