Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fike Recreation Center


 * 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. Cbrown1023 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fike Recreation Center

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Nom - non-notable campus recreation center. An editor claims it hosted an important college team, but that says nothing about the facility itself. If that's its only claim for notability, then relevent details can go in the team and/or school article. The same editor removed the prod, so I'm sending it here for broader consideration. Rklawton 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hosted the Tigers for close to 40 years, while they competed in the Southern Conference (when it was a major conference) and the ACC.  The fact it is now a rec center doesn't mean at one time it wasn't notable.    Many other articles on defunct college basketball arenas also exist.  Patken4 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Using the logic in the first part of your statement, it would make sense to write articles about the bus they rode in, too. It's just a dumb building that the team played in. So what?  The logic in the second part of your argument fails WP:INN.  Rklawton 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles on major sports venues are notable. Articles on buses teams rode on are not.  Patken4 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - If that's the case, then why isn't this stated in the notability guidelines? The building itself needs to be notable, and it isn't.  We don't allow articles on people solely based upon their relationship to someone famous - they need to be notable in and of themselves.  This applies to buildings every bit as much.  Not every location where George Washington slept is article worthy.  Those that are have some other claim to notability - like inclusion in the National Registery of Historic Places, architectural awards, or perhaps they've been the subject of some scholarly work.  This facility can make no such claim.  Rklawton 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I haven't found any notability guideline on architechure or buildings in general. The generally accepted criteria for sports venues, particularly for college venues that host Division I programs from the so-called "Major Conferences", is that they should be included.  For example, California's Haas Pavilion was kept in 2005 based at least partially on the fact it hosted a major college basketball team.   This venue, while it doesn't currently host any varsity level teams at Clemson, did at one point and had Wikipedia been around when it was currently hosting the basketball team, would have had an article on it.  More about the history of the building should be included, however.  Patken4 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks references from outside the university. Addhoc 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP. For crying out loud, if it's a D-I venue (or used to be), there is some notability. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:07, 21 January 2007 (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.