Talk:Washington State University Spokane

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Jensen-Byrd Building Controversy

This article needs a section on the current controversy over the historic Jensen-Byrd building, a notable piece of Spokane architecture that WSU has sold to a developer with the promise it would be demolished: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/14/jensen-byrd-building-slated-demolition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionClemens (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old news. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/24/with-terrain-jensen-byrd-opens-to-the-public-next-/#/0 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of WSU Health Sciences Spokane campus into Washington State University Spokane

Only major (flagship) campuses have enough coverage to warrant a separate article. As both articles are short, it would make more sense to develop the content in one place and split at a later time. Sounder Bruce 04:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Not enough to be stand-alone. Corky 05:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. There is a very notable distinction (that may be less obvious after tonight's title change, but will become more obvious as the article is developed more) that makes it atypical from the rationale provided in the merger proposal. This is not an article about a campus (in terms of the environment or "look and feel" of the university), which is the situation that the merge proposal rationale refers to. This article is about the campus as a physical area of land within Spokane, with its own beginnings, own sub-entities, and history that is not entirely tied to origins WSU Spokane.

The structure of this campus (again, as a physical land entity and not a university environment) is very similar to that of the Auraria Campus in Denver, Colorado that houses many academic institutions, like this campus does. This article started 12 years ago as the Riverpoint Campus and was never tagged for a merge, probably because its titling made it a clear that it was a separate entity from the academic institution of the same name (WSU Spokane). The fact that it now shares an eponymous name with its owner is perhaps unfortunate from a Wikipedia standpoint. But to clarify, there's nothing that's structurally different about the campus versus before...it only had a name change. The campus is home to not just Washington State University Spokane, but also the Spokane operation of Eastern Washington University, and also University of Washington.

Lastly, tonight's edits to upgrade and further develop the Riverpoint Campus article began just a few hours ago and is a process that is obviously not yet complete. It would add unnecessary work (it's more than just copy and paste, but also copy editing, splicing, rephrasing, reorganizing, etc.) to merge them and resplit them in a few days when these articles get further developed, especially since this was never an issue for the past 12 years. Jdubman (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Jdubman. This is a well-developed article on a notable subject. The situation is not broken so there is no need to fix it. gidonb (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]