Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weir House (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 no consensus. As framed here, the notability of the topic seems to boil down to whether Graeme Bartlett's sources are sufficient germane to establish notability for the building. Two people say yes (Graeme and Doncram), two people say no (TheLongTone and Sionk) and I don't see a killer argument in favour of one side. Other arguments do not seem to be accompanied by much evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Weir House (Victoria University of Wellington)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot see how this building is notable enough to merit more than a brief article in the university's page. Redirect undone by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see that an aticle on the subject was deleted as a result of a discussion. Can't see how anyting might have changed. Speedy D?TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * keep That debate was more than ten years ago though. Now there are several references available:(a mention) so I think an independent article could be written from suitable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * keep" Weir House is a significant residential college at Victoria University of Wellington. Originally founded along the lines of an Oxford college, it is a significant landmark in Wellington and several books have been written on its history. To delete Weir House, without deleting articles such as Knox College, Otago or Selwyn College, Otago would be to apply two different policies on notability, and to leave Wikipedia without a significant institution within New Zealand's university history. Darren (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that it was possible to come up with a bunch of references; however all of them seem to be fundamentally about the university. As for the second person believing this should be kept, the argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, much as TheLongTone has said, the two sources in the article are not independent of the University, while the sources discovered by Graeme seem to be mentions in articles about something else. Even though it's bricks and mortar and, probably for NZ, been around for a fair time there's no evidence of a heritage listing or architectural importance. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are substantial historical facts about this residence already included in the article, and its photos show it is substantial architecturally.  See Category:University and college residential buildings for many articles about substantial dormitories and other collegiate residences that have less substance.  (And please spare me any complaint about "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" not being valid.  We need a counter-essay to that essay, because as Wikipedia has matured in many areas, "other stuff like this exists" is indeed an increasingly valid argument.)  It is not surprising and it is perfectly fine by me if there exist major sources about the university which provide coverage about this, and for those sources to be associated with the university, of course they are.  A book by an alumnus would be fine in my view.  And it is not as if this is a promotional article supporting some commercial venture. -- do  ncr  am  21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to have turned every basis of Wikipedia on it's head. Are you saying Wikipedia should have articles about every building because they are 'substantial'? And if you know of an independently published book by an alumnus maybe you could share it. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The history book is called: Weir Tales: 75 Years of History. Here is a press release by the university about it http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0808/S00285/weir-house-celebrates-75th-anniversary.htm Darren (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh puh-lease. Self -published nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 03:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2017 (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.