Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Notre Dame residence halls. Canvassing and incredibly poor keep arguments are not a winning combination and the argument that individual articles need decent specific sourcing about the subject is a basic requirement everywhere. The argument to aggregate the articles is compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles which have all be recreated after AfD. I'll be sending them all to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't start multiple similar AFDs without linking, else you're needlessly making it hard for others. Also just run one or two at most, to see if you get agreement before imposing so much on others.  And in general, 2nd or 3rd or 4th AFDs on the same topic usually fail (and should fail).  How many of these have you started in fact?
 * To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):
 * Articles for deletion/Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Keenan Hall
 * Articles for deletion/Carroll Hall (University of Notre Dame)
 * --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. There is no reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The residential college is in itself notable. The building, built in 1931, was designed by the architectural firm Maginnis & Walsh. The building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places with reference number ID78000053 in 1978. It also features statuary by Eugene Kormendi. Its long history is well sourced, as well as it role in the university's history. Additionally, the University of Notre Dame has an undergraduate hall system that blends the residential college system and the house system. All first-year students are placed in one of the 31 halls upon enrollment, and each hall has its own spirit, rector, coat of arms, motto, alumni club, tradition, mascot, sport teams, events, dances and reputation. Approximately 80% of undergraduate students live on campus, and often a student lives in the same dorm for the entirety of their undergraduate career. Hence, like the Harvard Houses and the Yale residential colleges, the Notre Dame Residence Halls are not simply student dorms but something more. So, much like Morse College has its own page, so should Alummi. Eccekevin (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  08:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources on the page, giving it significant coverage. The neo-gothic architecture alone is itself, as a work by the Maginnis and Walsh on the National Register of Historic Places, has been described in the sources.   Eccekevin (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closer about canvasing: Unfortunately Eccekevin is canvasing for participation in this AfD. ,.  // Timothy :: talk  10:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's called canvassing.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it's not, in accordance with WP:CANVASS and WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect This is an exceptionally difficult AfD to figure out. First, we normally keep buildings that are on the national historical register even if they're poorly covered otherwise, because we consider the NRHS a source. In this instance, the entire area is on the register, and the building only gets a couple of sentences of lip service within the NRHS source - not the significant coverage we usually see. Also, it appears much of the actual coverage of the hall is in university sources, making it lack independence - there's an architectural journal in which it gets a mention and also a Knute Rockne journal article in which it gets a mention. A newspaper search was difficult since lots of Alumni Halls exist around the US, but I didn't see any secondary sigcov in a targeted search either. So on one hand, you can make a good argument that there's plenty of coverage about the building, and on the other you can make a good argument that the building has only really been covered by sources closely associated with it. Since it's a building it's not a huge deal whether or not it gets kept, in my opinion, but it's honestly questionable as to whether it deserves its own article per WP:SPLIT and WP:GNG's secondary sourcing requirement as opposed to being mentioned in a list of Notre Dame residence halls, or in an article about the historical district as a whole. (I just realised the poorly attended original AfD went to DRV in 2019 and there was general agreement there that this should remain a redirect, so I'm upgrading from my "probably redirect" to a "redirect.") SportingFlyer  T · C  14:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SportingFlyer yes indeed given the generic name it is difficult to find sources since there are so many others with similar names. But there are indeed many sources about it out there. I am slowly adding them as I do the research, in particular several articles from the South Bend Tribune on its construction, history, and architectural features, as well as its treatment in Hope's book about the university's history. Given it is part of the NRHP district, the fact that there are many secondary sources (and I will keep adding them), the huge abundance of sources connected to the university that describe its history in details, and finally the peculiar residential college system at Notre Dame (that gives residential halls a lot of independence and unique traditions and peculiarities), I invite you to take a second look. Eccekevin (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've counted 11 other sources in the article that are not owned or operated by the University. Also, because it's part of a historical district, I feel that it's a worthy subject to keep. I do admit I'm biased, since I'm an alumna of the university. But there are many other articles out there that are deserved of an AfD, than this one. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you point to the sources that provide direct and indepth coverage of the subject required by SIGCOV? It is obvious not everything in a historic district is notable.  // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: The above editor was canvassed for there vote .  // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed (Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out, (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Very good and interesting article, same as 20 similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. Note: I was NOT canvassed. -- Silve ''' rije 00:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Silverije, Looks like this is your first time at AfD, you picked an interesting time and place to start.  // Timothy :: talk  01:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and this is your umpteenth time at afd, relevance? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the closer will understand the relevance.  // Timothy :: talk  02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , what (should be:)) relevant is whether an editor bases their !vote on relevant wikipolicies (which WP:ITSINTERESTING used above is not), not that they are new to afd or that they usually !vote "delete" (hint, hint:)) or "keep" (who? moi?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Here is the nomination form from the NRHP, It says the time period is 1825-1849, the subject was built in 1931. From the information you see here do you think this document describes the subject? I don't and I don't see how the nom could.
 * The vote stacking is an issue the nom will have to answer for; we both know how destructive canvassing is at AfD, if I happened to post on a couple of editors pages who were familar with NRHP asking for help researching this that I had reason to believe would vote delete (I can name several), you'd rightfully have my head on a platter. It's probably enough to close this as no consensus to be nominated later.  // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you open the NRHP listing you see that Alumni Hall is listed as building #25, and it provides an architectural description of its features. Eccekevin (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors can look for themselves and see if this is a listing for a building or a district and if the document has any details of the building. Editors can also search for the building in the NRHP database here and see if they find it.  // Timothy :: talk  07:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, if listed on nrhp with sources beyond simple stats, meets WP:NBUILD so is wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my discussion, we assume NRHP sources are good because they typically talk about one building in detail. This building only gets a couple sentences, it's not SIGCOV. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is not the centerpiece of the historic district, it is still a contributing property and gets SIGCOV elsewhere, so I think it still falls under WP:NBUILD. Eccekevin (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Show me one source where there's significant coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This history book covers well its construction and history, this piece is an in-depth look at the architecture and statuary on the hall, these articles also detail its architecture . The South Bend Tribune has several pieces on its funding , construction    , and history  .Eccekevin (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The first book is not independent - it's published by Notre Dame Press. The Medievalism book is just a passing mention - it's one sentence! The Notre Dame alumnus is also clearly not independent. The South Bend article from 1916 clearly is about some sort of different building. The only good non-local source I see is the one from the Evening Journal, but most of these aren't significant and all but one of them are hyper-local. Still clearly fails our notability guidelines, should be merged into a list. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like you decided the ignore all the in depth coverage by the South Bend Tribune. Also, I don’t know where you’re getting it, but the medievalism article dedicated several paragraphs to it. But it doesn’t really seem like any evidence would change your mind at this point. Eccekevin (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notable, historic building. (Any merge would overwhelm) Djflem (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced article on an historic building. I can't see any useful reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notable, historic building. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has not been bad-type canvassing as far as i can tell, and I didn't see any of it, anyhow.  2nd nominations are usually bad nominations, as here. --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (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.