Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD opposed, so coming to AfD. While this is a pretty looking building, the article has no citations and no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PROD was inappropriate for a major building at a significant university, even though it was unsourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – The chapel is part of the Lancaster University, which everyone will agree is Noteable by any means we use here at Wikipedia to establish that premises. In that a ‘’’Merge/Redirect’’’ of the separate article of Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre would distract from the main article, and the chapel in its own right, I believe, has enough coverage by RS sources has gained a place here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources given in the article. No reliable sources have been presented here. No need to merge into the main article: the content can just be deleted. Perhaps one might keep a picture for the main article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect to Lancaster University. Notability is not inherited, and I see no reason that this can't fit comfortably into the main article. As it stands, the Chaplaincy Centre article has a lot of content that is both unsourced and not particularly relevant (such as a description of every single room in the building)-- this could definitely be trimmed and put into the main article without distracting from the rest of the Lancaster U article. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing notable about this university service. Ajf773 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that it's the building that may be notable, not the service it provides. There's clearly nothing especially notable or unusual about the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's a very unusual building within a university and an architecturally notable building on the campus of Lancaster University, perhaps its most notable building. I think it just about slips over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you specify which notability guideline you think this "just about slips over"? Do you have any RS to offer to support the argument that it is "architecturally notable", or is this just a personal opinion? Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete because zero sources. I though this would be easy to remedy, so I ran news archive searches expecting to find articles about the construction design, architect etc.  I found nothing beyond a handful event listings memorial service announcements.  Necrothesp or anyone else who can source it should feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks to Necrothesp for sourcing.  Still needs improvement, but I think we can keep it as a significant university building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some citations to the article. It was the first joint faith university chaplaincy in Britain, the basis for the university logo (which suggests it's seen as pretty iconic) and is listed on the Twentieth Century Society database. I suspect it will eventually be listed (yes, purely supposition, but an educated guess). No, there isn't a lot of material online, but I think there's just about sufficient notability here. The university appears to have published a pamphlet on the building and its history, incidentally, but not online. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am impressed and thankful at the work has done to improve the article. It is definitely a better article. That said, there are now four citations: the first is a very brief listing; the second is two paragraphs in a book; the third is the university's own website; and the fourth is arguably not an independent source, being the university's student newspaper, and then it's merely one sentence in an article. That is an improvement, but it does not meet WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". By all means, add a paragraph and a picture to the Lancaster University article, but this still doesn't meet any notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I just added a reference where this structure receives in-depth coverage in a scholarly architectural text. As such, it is a landmark in its area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That reference was already added. Best I can see, it's two paragraphs in a book. That's not what I would call "in-depth coverage". This remains some way from meeting WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as has reliable sources coverage as added to the article so it no longer needs to be deleted. Two paragraphs or even one can be enough for significant coverage when they include numerous facts about the subject Atlantic306 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you take the 2 paragraphs in the book as in-depth coverage, then we have one (1) example of in-depth coverage in a reliable source. WP:GNG requires multiple such examples, usually interpreted as 3+. Still fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not significant enough to merit its own article. Merge with the article about the university. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (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.