Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward Court


 * 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   redirect to Housing at the University of Chicago. That should satisfy most people here. Can be spun off again per WP:SS if more sources are found that allow writing a separate article.  Sandstein  14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodward Court

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a building which does not contain either a claim to notability nor multiple, independent sources. TM 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination; no evidence given that this dorm was special to anyone but its residents. --Closeapple (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article seems a little WP:CRUFTy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an y Eero Saarinen  building. all of his major buildings are notable, as for the major works or anyone famous in the arts, and can be documented fully from sources about his work. (Note that I said famous, not just any notable architect).  `    DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every work of a famous person meets Notability "significant coverage" merely for being listed or mentioned in passing repeatedly. Is Woodward Court discussed in detail in multiple publications?  Or are there reliable sources that this work substantially added to Saarinen's notability or featured some innovation in Saarinsen's career? --Closeapple (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - added reference to "Chicago's Famous Buildings: Fifth Edition by Franz Schulze and Kevin Harrington" Racepacket (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So notability of buildings is inherited through the architect and WP:GNG no longer applies to all buildings by famous architects?--TM 14:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However, Chicago's Famous Buildings (at least the cited part) appears to mention Woodward only in passing in a section about the University of Chicago itself in a University of Chicago Press book. WP:LOCAL may be applicable here. --Closeapple (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Only a weak claim to notability, and no evidence of it. If the building has some architectural merit, give it a brief mention in a broader article on the university. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure this dorm, which I think the university viewed as a mistake, deserves a standalone article. I don't recall any complaints when they tore it down. And I'm not finding anything substantive to base an article on in Google News or Scholar. Speciate (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a building by a famous architect that the university nonetheless decided t tear down--and I rather agree with them, based on the information in the article==this make it more, not less notable. Every major work of a famous artist is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of starting a circular argument, how is a "major work of a famous artist? defined, apart from reliable sources saying it is? (GNG?). Nuttah (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I've incorporated this content into Housing at the University of Chicago, and along with many of the others, I think Redirect (merge completed) is the most sensible action. Shadowjams (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect I like that solution for this borderline case. There's not much here to indicate notability other than DGG's argument that this is a major (six buildings should qualify) work by a notable architect.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 4 April 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.