Talk:Cloyne Court Hotel

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cooperatives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

University of California Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is within the scope of the UC Berkeley task force. New members are always welcome!

Untitled

Borderline. What do people think? I didn't think this was notable enough for an article, so I merged and redirected it to University of California, Berkeley. It was summarily bounced back by User:Jiang with the edit comment "(Housing - rm section; single co-op does not deserve special mention; maybe deserve article since on natl register of historic places?)" But this is not an article about a building, it is an article about a housing unit and its role in the culture of a university. If it's not worth mentioning in the article about the university, is it worth its own article? Remove the university-related material and you have a substub about a borderline-notable building. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) P. S. Do take a peek at the Original version.

~~Delete~~. I think the original red and blue links must spell something in Morse code, but I'm too apathetic to find out. Noisy | Talk 17:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Change to neutral, having read the link from Jiang. I think that there could be the basis for an article, here. Noisy | Talk 18:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete; either that or I'll put up an article on how I pay my mortgage and (very occasionally) clean house. — Bill 17:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not sufficiently notable. The housing arrangement and building are both of insufficient note Gurdonark 17:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: #92001718 on the National Register of Historic Places. Info on its history can be found here. Other buildings have articles, eg, Cory Hall. If this is to be kept, the university-related material is relevant but it needs text on what it was before it became a co-op. --Jia ng 18:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Note: this is not an argument for deletion. But it does bear on the question of the degree of notability conferred by being listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The total number of listings is about 78,000; see National Register of Historic Places Searches are available here: http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm I searched on Berkeley, CA. Cloyne Court Hotel is indeed listed, dated 1992-12-24. The total number of listings in Berkeley, CA is 56. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutral: I suspect that there is potential to write a worthwhile article about this building, but this is not yet it. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. The National Register is too broad for our usage. --Improv 13:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand, there's probably room for a article here with a different focus. --Goobergunch 21:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems like there is potential, keep —siro χ o 08:36, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
National Register is reason enough to keep it, if someone could please add that to the article ... - David Gerard 12:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Expand. On the National Register of Historic Places, therefore notable. Stub is decent. — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Expand a bit. This is a notable building by a distinguished architect (as UC's primary architect, Howard is at least regionally famous) on the National Register. It has also played, in its current role as a student co-op, a social role in the university community. --Calton 08:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In looking at the Berkeley page, it does seem to be miscategorized there. If a Notable Buildings subsection pops up, put it there. Maybe link to the UC Berkeley page? --Calton 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What is gained by omitting this article? Lack of notability is not enough; if the subject is even slightly notable and the accuracy is not in dispute I don't see why it should be deleted. Plus, it makes the UC Berkeley page lopsided to merge this in there. ~leif ☺ _HELO 10:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Discussion Section

Good grief, it looks like I'll have to take a stab at rewriting this -- I recognized the source of information for most of that history article linked above: me. I was the editor of the house newsletter that published the original article back in 1984.

Trust, there's enough meat for at least a short entry, once I get around to digging up my material from 1984. --Calton 05:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Syphillis?

I removed this sentence added by 66.159.224.70:

Cloyne Court had one of the highest syphillis infection rates in the country until its residents were put on mandatory antibiotics.

It has no source and no timeframe. It should not be put back without more context. Mike Dillon 04:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?!

In fact, the actions of the authorities themselves that night were highly responsible for inciting mass hysteria, and "feelings of doom."

That's just a wee bit biased, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acc78 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 June 2007

Fixed. Αργυριου (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot cookie scare section?

Why was the section about the pot cookie incident removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.162.2 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Argyriou (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this sentiment. The merits or demerits of it's inhabitants aren't an area for notable discussion seeing as the article concerns the historicity of the building. Just undid an attempt to put back this note on the pot cookie scare. Maximilianklein (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]