Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester and Rutherford Hall

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 redirect to University of Canterbury. ~~Will userfy to whoever wants to perform the merge.~~ J04n(talk page) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The page's history is intact, if anyone wants to merge to the parent article or create a list of residence halls please feel free to do so. J04n(talk page) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester and Rutherford Hall

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

Not notable. Only source is a primary one. Adabow (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikiproject New Zealand In general, non-notable topics with primary sources, on topics that are already covered in the encyclopedia, are not appropriate for deletion. Possible outcomes are to keep this article as a spin off of University of Canterbury, merge to a list of residence halls of the University of Canterbury, merge to University of Canterbury, and redirect without merger to University of Canterbury. This decision is a function of who is willing to do the work; and if no one volunteers in say, 30 days, there is an easy choice here, the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request Reading the talk page history indicates that part of the attribution history for the article is missing. I request that an admin restore any missing attribution history. Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article history has been restore as a contested prod. GB fan 21:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the old text used? The article was completely rewritten when it was recreated in October 2006. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either what you are asking or what question you want answered. I've already documented that article history was missing above. I don't have access to admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common term is "page history" or "edit history". Writing "missing attribution history" seems to invoke wmf:Terms of Use or WP:Copying within Wikipedia. WP:Proposed deletion is reversed for any reason, but I do not see a good reason to restore, as the deleted revisions were not used. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then based on my request, an admin could have said "there is no attribution history missing, only edit history". But that would not have resolved the problem. Unscintillating (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Canterbury - nothing remarkable on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2013 (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.