Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot House


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eliot House

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable dorm. This was a contested prod several years ago (see Talk:Eliot House for deletion discussion) and in all that time nobody has found a single reference to substantiate notability. Matchups 02:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone adds references to reliable sources that actually discuss the topic of this article in depth.  The current references all discuss various notable Harvard graduates in depth, mentioning in passing that these people lived at Eliot House during their Harvard years.  If notability rubbed off in this way, we would have to write an article about every brick used to build Harvard.  That being said, perhaps this dorm is notable based on in-depth analysis of its history or architecture,  but the current references don't demonstrate it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wholly non-notable.  Along with every brick it is constructed of. Qworty (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the sake of having a complete Template:HarvardResidentialHouses. Notable enough. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Eliot House features in enough memoirs by well-known people, movies, etc., to be "notable" for Wikipedia. I just deleted a large chunk of the article because I judged it to be a copyvio of this webpage. If that page were used judiciously as a source, instead of being copied, I think someone could make a nice article. --Orlady (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The web page you mentioned is at harvard.edu. We can consider that a reliable source, if the article survives, but it is not independent, and so cannot be cited to support keeping. Matchups 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the article currently cites 13 other sources, seven of which are completely independent of the university. My "keep" !vote is based on the number and credibility of the sources that feature Eliot House. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources may be credible, but they only support the specific facts of who lived there, not the notability of the dorm. Just as a newspaper box score of a minor league game supports the result of the game but not the notability of the players.Matchups 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Eliot House may be mentioned in memoirs, but casual mentions of course don't satisfy any inclusion criteria. Beyond that, having a "complete" template is a terrible reason to keep an article ... the answer is more likely that some or all of the entries lack notability.  Generally speaking, it's highly unlikely that any dorm, anywhere, is notable, and this is not precisely a building steeped in antiquity.   Ravenswing  04:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are probably a few notable dorms, such as the oldest, the largest, or the first coeducational dorm, if anyone can figure out what they are. Or for that matter, any that meet the general notability criteria.  But not this one. Matchups 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Orlady.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 10:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Orlady. Yes, there are sources, but notability is awful thin. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Orlady. Usually I'm not in favor of keeping dormitories, but this is an exception.  If this were Britain, this house would easily have a blue plaque given the amount of historic figures who resided there and the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:GNG, not only "mentions" as claimed above.--Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (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.