Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)


 * 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   merge to School of Oriental and African Studies. It is possible that source #1 offers significant coverage. But without outside support from other valid sources, this one source is insufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson House (London)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - well actually merge such as it is into the main SOAS article (which itself could do with a fair bit of work, the alumni list could do with splitting out.) Le Deluge (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary source coverage. I'm surpised it's not under CSD. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  12:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep — there are important historical African American associations with this building. I have added the history and easily found references. There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE, especially points 4 & 6, was followed before proposing this article for deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that seems completely misleading. It was named after a famous African-American, but there doesn't seem to be any historical connection, and being named after someone famous does not give automatic notability. Indeed, a fair bit of this article probably needs to be removed; a bit of background on its namesake is fine, but as of now there's too much info on him unrelated to the building itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this gives the background on why the building is so-named, outlining Paul Robeson's association with the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) that led to the naming of a SOAS building, with a book reference.
 * Regardless, however, a ton of sources about the man himself don't give any reason for the notability of this building. He may have been associated with the SOAS, but this is a dorm building for SOAS students, something he was not at all associated with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per lack of significant coverage to indicate notability. Being named after someone famous certainly does not transfer that person's notability to the subject. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see coverage for the Paul Robeson House in Philadelphia, but not for any such place in England. Do the books cited count as notable, and did they provide in depth coverage of it?  Did any notable meetings take place at that location, something that got news coverage and influenced future politicians or whatnot?   D r e a m Focus  04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: For clarification, there are two buildings with the same name (in the US and UK), both associated with the same person, with an appropriate Paul Robeson House disambiguation page. One of the books referenced (by English Heritage) has significant coverage (but not fully online), the other some mention in a historical context of Paul Robeson and Lorenzo Dow Turner. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some more references and an external link in the context of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Another university dorm that fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Faulty nom. New SPA account has been tagging an nominating a bunch of articles, but in this case he has given no valid reason to delete. Onthegogo (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, there's been a lot of delete votes with valid reasoning, so that is not a valid keep argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Sources demonstrate notability of the builiding in and of itself, and not just as a hall of residence of an important university. I also want to echo the comments above about the nomination process. Mtking has been tagging and nominating multiple article since recently setting up their account, in no cases have they attempted to improve the articles in question, to find sources demonstrating notability, or to engage others in discussion on the articles Talk pages first, and the multiple deletion discussions which have been brought about by them have wasted considerable time.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources meet the GNG, at all. Please state which sources you feel do if that's going to be your argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Squeaks by GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Please actually state which of the sources meet the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville: Survey of London' is good enough for me, the others merely seal the deal.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That source absolutely does not count as more than trivial coverage. It says that the building (along with another) occupy the site of a former depot. That's it. Literally nothing else. It goes on to describe the depot, but says absolutely nothing more about this subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: have you read the whole of page 368 of the book in hard copy? (I haven't) Only a small snippet is available on Google Books. However the name of the building is given in bold, which suggests strongly to me that the book is conveying that it has far more than in-passing notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy crap are you being serious? It's listed in bold, so we can assume there's more coverage proving its notability even if we can't find it? I have honestly never heard a worse argument for notability in my life.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus, we have the index visible, which shows that it is not referenced on any other page!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it that's a no then.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, of course I haven't. But are you suggesting that we assume the index is lying and that there are more mentions, just because it's a bold word?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So how, exactly, do you know that there is no other text on that page about this building? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I technically can't say that for sure. But what matters is that you can't say there is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So why are you so desperate to delete this article then? The name of the building is in bold, that clearly suggests importance. It is pretty likely that there is more text on the page, another editor has suggested as much above. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty likely? The fact that it mentions the house and then goes on to discuss something else means it probably doesn't mention it again. And being in bold does not confer notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all a bit moot anyhow, as I believe that the hall of residence building actually incorporates much of the old, highly historic, building. The old building was not knocked down but was renovated and extended. It is the extension which is visible in the article photo. This is just based on my memory from having walked past a number of times, but perhaps another editor more familiar with it could confirm this?Rangoon11 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: What counts as a suitable source is a matter of judgement and it appears there is no consensus here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just a matter of judgement if none of the sources meet WP:GNG. Which source meets it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's run through the actual sources in the article before this AfD closes:
 * 1. It says that the building (along with another) occupy the site of a former depot. That's it. Literally nothing else. It goes on to describe the depot, but says absolutely nothing more about this subject.
 * 2.Published by the school, not independent.
 * 3.Published by the company that manages the residence, not independent.
 * 4.A wiki anyone can edit, not acceptable for the GNG.
 * 5.Another wiki.
 * 6. A site telling it's members how to book a room at the house for their upcoming trip. Clearly not significant coverage.
 * 7. A totally reliable source, but one that simply mentions in its biography of Paul Robeson that a building was named after him. Not significant coverage.
 * 8.Published by the school alumni association, not independent.

As for other sources, there seem to be no GNews hits, and I've so far failed to find any other real coverage, although I'll keep trying. --Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 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.