Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student and Administrative Services Building


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Student and Administrative Services Building

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

Whilst I'm sure this is of interest to the university, there is no claim or indication in the article as to why this construction project (or the final product) is notable. Just being there is not a reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nuttah (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if it's kept, it must be moved to Newcastle University Student and Administrative Services Building. (I would do it immediately, but I'm not sure whether that's proper when a deletion debate is taking place). Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep. The council granted planning permission for the building as a landmark in the Barras Bridge/Newcastle Haymarket area. I also think that if kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate article title. --TubularWorld (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure if this will be a notable building, but if kept it must certainly be renamed. Nevertheless, it might be better being merged with something else.  This depends on how significnat a landmark it will be, which I am not qualified to judge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the non-descriptive name indicates something about actual common-sense notability. given any public building of any degree of scoped, where public bids are let and zoning permission must be obtained, there will be sources. WP:N already indicates that 2 sources do not necessarily prove something notable, if it actually isnt.  DGG (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Of the 19 sources currently supplied, 7 are from Newcastle University and a majority are press-release statements and industry-press rewritings of those. The sole national press citation (Times Higher) isn't substantial coverage. Aside from the sources given, and a second wave of similar stuff when the unit opens, I don't think substantial coverage is coming.  Its function will almost certainly never confer notability on this building.  It is one of dozens of public-sector new builds in England every year. (I have a similar opinion of a few other members of Category:Buildings at Newcastle University as well.) — mholland (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Majoreditor (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a highly generic name used for buildings around the world. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (name is too generic) and Merge into Newcastle University. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:55, 22 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.