Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lighthill 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   keep. Squeaks by just barely on the basis of the slightly more than trivial coverage in the sources provided. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

James Lighthill House

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - there is insufficient third-party coverage of this building to create notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (no prejudice to redirect) A dorm with no external notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless someone finds some evidence of notability for this specific building, redirect to University College London. It's not an unreasonable search term, and redirects are cheap. Lady  of  Shalott  00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to University_College_London as there doesn't seem to be any demonstration or indication of notability. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notability shown. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - It's non-notable, and has little to no third party coverage. Sellyme Talk 08:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — there is historical information online and associations with Sir Michael James Lighthill, FRS, a significant applied mathematician. I have added historical information and updated the references. There is a lack of evidence that WP:BEFORE, especially points 4 & 6, was followed before proposing this article for deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, beyond it being named after him, what's the connection?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Johnathan Bowen. -- Lear's Fool 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Following my vote above I have discovered the following sources which in my view demonstrate notability for the subject of this article:, , .Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should just add as a correction that the last of the three links in my previous post is to the same source that Jpbowen already added to the article, the first two are new however.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm somewhat confused by the assertions of historical value. From what I can tell, the only info on the actual history of the building is that it is on the site of a depot. The information on the building's namesake, while relevant, absolutely does not give the building notability, and I find it somewhat misleading to assert it is so, considering that there doesn't seem to be a major connection between him and the building besides his name. Notability is not inherited, and being named after someone famous does not make something notable; if somewhat said "keep, this is named after Albert Einstein, a famous scientist" their argument would be completely discounted. Of course, if I'm missing some stronger connection please tell me, but otherwise I find it absurd that people would vote keep based on this weak connection. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect you have failed to engage with the sources at all, and have completely ignored the two new ones which I have linked to above. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did read them, and I don't consider reports on the construction of new dorms from sites on building construction to mean a building is notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why are construction magazines any different from any other third party coverage? I am aware of no Wikipedia policy which says this.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no reason it isn't an acceptable source for info. That being said, it seems that they cover most building projects throughout the area; coverage that says more than "this is being built, here are its amenities" is kinda needed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of these publications have at least a UK national and in large part an international scope. They certainly do not give coverage to every new building project in the UK or even in London. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge I've created Halls of residence at the University College London. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article and those found by Rangoon11 has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found by Rangoon11 do seem to make it notable.  D r e a m Focus  04:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Short mentions in only three sources, doesn't pass WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing in gnews. one source merely confirms number of rooms, another merely confirms they are self catered. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean Google News - which is in any event of questionable relevance to a building such as this - then you are incorrect, because the two articles that I have linked to above are both available through the Google News archive.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Squeaks by on reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There appears to be enough third party significant coverage now. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * merge Buildings are always named for someone, but that does not make them notable, and information to the effect is  not encyclopedic, The only possibility here is the architecture, and I cannot tell whether this is just a routine listing or one showing  particular significance. There's no reason to lose the information entirely, but no need for ti to be a separate article.    DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 March 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.