Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student lounge (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Not delete. The consensus here is to not delete this, but it is also split as to whether to leave it standalone or merge it somewhere else, likely Common room. The article is improved from the previously deleted version, and improved since this AFD was opened including sources. A merge discussion should happen though, I'll leave that to the talkpage of the article. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Student lounge
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Was just deleted a few minutes ago. I'm not sure if this is a re-creation or not, but it's mostly a dicdef either way. Since I'm not sure it's a re-creation, I'm taking it to AfD instead of G4ing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete given the first AfD was closed as speedy delete "without prejudice against future recreation", then its right we discuss this again. However this remains pure original research as it lack any verifiable sources. It also isn't clear, as TPH pointed out, how this is or could be anything more than a dictionary definition. Gwernol 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well obviously it is a recreattion, but it is not a recreation of the original article, its a recreation of the same topic but written as an encyclopedia article instead of as a dictionary definition. i can find some sources if necessary.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some sources to the article, the concept is unique architecturally speaking and is an important part of the college experience, furthermore it gets 2.4 million ghits! so i say keep or at the very least merge with student union.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are for a design competition, not for the contents of the article, which are still original research and as Carlossuarez46 says below, they don't rise above a dictionary definition. Gwernol 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Given the sources added by User:Coanda-1910, I agree that this should now, just about, be kept. I've removed the worst of the original research from the article and tidied up the headers. It still needs more sources, especially on the impact of lounges - those that Coanda provided are good indication of the type of material that should be added to the article. Gwernol 10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete still basically a fluffed-up DICDEF. Does every room with a potential dedicated purpose get an article even if all it says is the obvious about the place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment, no reason for this room to be treated any differently.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - we do have an article for Classroom --T-rex 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It also appears to be a mainly American-centric idea since I don't know of any such rooms in UK students' unions.  [Jam] [talk] 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Common room, which is effectively the same thing as a student lounge.  [Jam] [talk] 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - they do exist in the UK, we have one at Oxford Brookes for instance. I just don't see the point in having an article on it.  Do we have one for student bar?  No. --  role player 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck out own comment, no opinion at present. --  role player 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: In which case, they aren't that popular perhaps in the UK.  [Jam] [talk] 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Pretty sure a G4 would have been ok. If it gets rejected then go to afd. -- neon white talk 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- it's really, really hard to elaborate in any meaningful sense on a concept like this, as the name itself contains almost everything you need to know. An environment characterized primarily by location and by cheap high-impact furniture and vending machines does not warrant much more than a dicdef. Haikupoet (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a student lounge is a lounge for students. It isn't notable beyond that. Otherwise breakroom needs its own article as it is a lounge for employees. not to mention Employee Lounge, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This was just deleted and has gotten no better with recreation, DICDEF. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I would almost G4 this but the author went to some trouble to try and make it substantially different - besides, the version I deleted was a one-liner. In spite of the effort, it's still just a dicdef with no real sourcing, and it's hard to see it going beyond that. Shereth 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Common room, I don't see how the current article is a dictionary definition, it seem to largely deal with what the term describes not the term itself. Guest9999 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment, who cares if they are not popular in the United Kingdom? Lots of things are popular in the states and not in the UK and vice versa but that doesn't mean it isn't notable for people from the U.S. or on wikipedia. This is clearly not a dictionary definition, look up DICDEF why don't you?
 * "Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable." How does this article fall under the DICDEF rules? The article is clearly not nothing more than a description and definition. It also has potential to grow, perhaps you would all consider giving it some time to do so and then revisit this issue?Myheartinchile (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENTtake a look at Category:Room stubs, there are nearly a hundred similar articles on all sorts of rooms and much short and completely unsourced however they are notable, think about it, they don't have "student lounges" in the UK so a British exchange student can look it up and find out, and what better place than wikipedia? The subject is clearly notable, it just needs better sourcing, but why not improve it, instead of delete it? Please also consider Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Give an article a chance Myheartinchile (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

comment cmon, we even have an article about a Coffee table book!!!1Myheartinchile (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've tried to spruce up the article somewhat, and would like to think it's improved enough to change some minds. I'd appreciate it if those who already voted took a second look. From what I've seen, it's not exactly an easy area to research but it has the potential to expand quite a bit, especially if someone at a university wants to pull up some of the sources I couldn't find the text of but looked promising on google scholar and JSTOR.Coanda-1910 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote - keep or merge. I don't see a problem either way as the article stands now. If it grows a fair amount more, it might need to stand on it's own to not overshadow common room, but that's not a problem now. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per info about student lounges being linked to academic success, added sourcing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I appreciate the attempt to 'fix' the article but the sources still don't really cut it. Shereth 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, one study that was not directly linked to the subject doesnt really equal notability. The article still doesn't assert why the subject is notable. -- neon white talk 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are notable because they are at almost every college and university in the United States! thats why.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a criteria for notability according to policy. -- neon white talk 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As Roleplayer said earlier, every university has a student bar, but we don't have an article for that....  [Jam] [talk] 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a student bar is not as common as you'd think in the US, but that's neither here nor there. Basically, I reiterate my earlier vote -- source it all you like, but there is no earthly need for an article on such a trivial subject. It'd be like having an article on dorm rooms when we already have one on dormitories. Haikupoet (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Haikupoet, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on the availability of sources for a good reason. By relying on independent, published sources to decide what is notable, we avoid imposing our own judgments on articles. The foundation of an encyclopedia is that it summarizes and reports information that other sources have deemed worth writing about. This avoids us being plagued by endless arguments about whose opinion of what is trivial should be followed. Since this article now has such sources, we should not interject our personal standards on this matter and follow the notability criteria - this subject is notable per the sources and we should have an article about it. Best, Gwernol 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwernol, you might want to read the sources first. Most are connected to the subject of the article tangentially at best.  They are sociological studies that were conducted in a student lounge, not writings ABOUT student lounges.  There is also a design competition that was won by a design for a student lounge but again the source is not about student lounges at all.  There is just no need for this article.  I would urge all here to check out N which tells us that (contra Gwernols opinion) "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." and notability standards for buildings and structures which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. Sources are nice, but I can easily come up with sources saying 2*2=4. That doesn't mean an article on multiples of two is warranted. By hammering on WP:V, all you're doing is missing the forest for the trees. And not even all of them, just one of them. Haikupoet (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - much improved per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Common room of which this is a special case. Smile a While (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Common room. No reason to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to common room with a redir. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No longer just a dictionary definition and no longer any original research thus addressing the reasons for the nomination. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 20 June 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.