Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Hall


 * 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. Consensus seems fairly comprehensively split over whether the coverage provided is enough to demonstrate notability. No consensus therefore arises for deletion, and hence we default to keep. ~ mazca  talk 22:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

New South Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:GNG, as it does not have multiple, independent sources. Besides that, the article makes no claim to notability. All of the sources provided are either trivial or from the campus newspaper. An attempt was made to redirect the article to List of Georgetown University buildings but that was reverted. TM 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete individual college dorm, apparently notable for its long hallways, and for its low quality architecture being considered characteristic of its university. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, while there are some notable dorms on US college campuses, they're few, and this isn't one of them. Perhaps recreate as a redirect after this is deleted, since the redirect does sound like a good idea.  Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is historic for its architecture and for the means the school used to build it. Campus newspapers have been repeatedly determined to be acceptable sources on Wikipedia. User:Namiba decided to liquidate much of Category:University and college dormitories in the United States without discussion as far as I can tell, and I took issue with how they've gone about blanking pages yesterday and today. I'd like to see a fuller discussion about what campus buildings require for GNG. For example, the one under discussion is an administrative center, performance space, and campus movie theater besides being a dormitory.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it matters, I've added several secondary sources today.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If college newspapers are considered neutral, third party sources, then something is very wrong. Simply being the residence of a school mascot or being expensive, are not claims to notability. There are still no claims to notability and nothing more than trivial mentions from legitimate sources.--TM 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a member of WikiProject Universities, I've seen the issue come up with each of the Featured Articles, which rely heavily on campus news sources. And each time a university article is up for FAC, those college newspapers are accepted by the the toughest standards on Wikipedia as acceptable neutral third party sources, regardless whether or not something is very wrong.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are in fact accepted for most purposes. The only problem sometimes is negative BLP. The question is whether they are sufficient to prove notability per the GNG,and I do not think they are. Looking at them here, they reference such things as the proposals for reuse of the old cafeteria, and that the President of the college lived there when a student, neither of which are substantial. The one thing that looks like a real ref, USNWR, is a listing about Georgetown dorms in general, and does not mention this one--that it is due to the cost of this particular dorm is WP:Original research.    DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the McFadden book, and the Washingtonian Magazine are reputable, independent secondary sources sufficient to show the article meets WP:GNG. I agree that the professionalism of student newspapers varies campus by campus.  But we don't have to assess the Hoya or the Georgetown Voice here, because we have other independent secondary sources sufficient to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Racepacket, what is the claim to notability in this article?--TM 02:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - has PLENTY of reliable sources. Dew Kane (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * but not for notability   DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can give some examples of university buildings that are considered notable, because I don't think there's that much difference here.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, the vast majority of university buildings are not notable. Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places are obviously notable. Buildings with independent, third party sources which are NOT the university newspaper. Simply being mentioned doesn't make a university building notable either.--TM 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I just feel that if the NRHP or UNESCO is your only barometer of notability, you'll end up with a very empty Wikipedia. Fortunately its not, and there are many ways to confer notability other than federal or international lists.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I said that NRHP makes a building obviously notable. Otherwise, are there multiple, independent non-trivial sources which establish notability ala WP:GNG. Simply existing, as you might have us believe, does not make a building notable.--TM 17:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, a lot of references have been supplied, but I don't think they establish notability, which should mean that this somehow stands out among thousands of other University halls of residence. See WP:Existence ≠ Notability and the List of bad article ideas #4. Yes, I know they are "only essays", but citing them saves writing it all out. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It is sourced, but not by sources that would deem the building notable. Perhaps Merge into Campuses of Georgetown University.-- Pink Bull  00:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of in depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Seems pretty WP:Run of the mill to me. PDCook (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2010 (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.