Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountainlair


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mountainlair

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced for more than a year, and I think it's inherently non-notable and non-"sourceable". The building appears in news stories merely as the venue for events; as best I can tell, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about it. The article itself is written in a promotional style akin to college admission brochures (and that's my guess about who wrote it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Slim down then merge with parent article, and delete. Every building of every university does not have to be listed here as an individual article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the university article. Merge and delete isn't compatible with the GFDL.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable building on a major university campus. Needs to made encyclopedic and to include more history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm in agreement with User:ChildofMidnight. The Mountainlair is one of the major parts of the West Virginia University campus.  Update the article with more historical information, awards received, and proper references.Brian Powell (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is now sourced, which was half the problem.  The other half was notability, and IMO it's notable enough to pass muster.  --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment -- to those of you saying it is notable: where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Notability isn't a matter of intuitive impressions. In addition, the single source now on the page is not independent of the subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article still needs a lot of work.  It is inadequately sourced, but it is not a case that the sources don't exist.  It's just that nobody has yet devoted the time to upgrade this article to what it should be.  I do disagree with the assertion that this means the source is not notable.  Brian Powell (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets the purpose of the usual inclusion criterion. Verifiable, well written article, serves good encyclopaedic purpose. Wily D  13:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Student union at major university, and therefore probably notable and a good place to merge other articles. DGG (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2008 (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.