Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Oppenheimer Hall

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. No prejudice against redirection Swarm ♠ 03:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Oppenheimer Hall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable university hall of residence. Possibly could be merged into something, but I can see no reason for a standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Keep As the originator of these pages it is demoralising to get this notice mid-edit. Instead of listing for deletion less than 20 minutes after first creation, please rather be supportive and suggest ways to improve. I am loathe to continue edits if there is a plan to delete these pages anyway. KH29 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)KH29[reply]

Comment - Sorry to hear of your frustration, but Wikipedia is built around the inclusion of notable topics. If your plan is to see the article survive, you need to provide some reason for its notability. Notability is the ability to provide valid in-depth support of the article. A single line listing does not do so. Good luck. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. If this one is deleted that will be tthe end of me on Wikipedia editing. I am finding too much ego these days of deleting things not sport or music related. One game for a college football team is noteworthy, yet a building housing 400 men a year, including those returning from WWII, over 50 years getting a college education is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KH29 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the sandbox to avoid such issues in future; otherwise use the {{in use}} tag. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KH29: Yes, Wikipedia bureaucracy can be a frustrating process. The notability process for Wikipedia does have its shortcomings. In a simplified explanation, it relies on significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Things like mainstream sporting events and concerts receive massive coverage whereas things in academics often do not. Often, academic sources are so thorough that other academic sources won't see a need to write about the same topic if the information will be the same whereas in pop culture publications it's almost the opposite. I think you're incorrectly attributing "ego" with this bureaucracy and reliance on one of our pillar policies. The editors involved in these deletion discussions know that it's not possible to rely on "I like it", "it's useful", or "it's valuable" person opinion arguments. Discussions need to be based on existing policies. !voting against these policies in deletion discussions is not the way to fix it but rather engaging in community discussions about changing the policies. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable building. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If other university residences such as Glendower Residence are notable based on 2 references from the UCT web page then so should these pages be kept. Other examples of residences include University of Toronto Graduate House (also 2 refs). The page is a stub - give it a chance to be expanded Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And to thge article creator, I entirely agree about the plethora of dull articles on dull Norwegian Death Metal bands (imo per se non notable) & sport articles, but as stated I cxan see no reason for these buildings to have separate articles: I would suggest incorporating the information into one of the articles about the university

Glendower Residence is indeed non-notable in my opinion: I've nominated it for deletion. The Toronto building is very possible notable due to it's architecture, as reflected in the references given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF but also be aware of WP:IAR. Lets see what others have to say on the deletion debate Gbawden (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Unless something really notable happened there, or it was built by a notable architect,. this is the kind of material that belongs on the University web site, not in a public encyclopedia. there are standard listings for this building on Google, and even a few passing mentions in Google Books. All in all, simply not a notable building.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the two keep !votes are not policy based arguments (WP:CHANCE which the article has now had three weeks to satisfy WP:BURDEN and WP:OTHERSTUFF). I had considered closing this discussion as delete but thought adding my opinion would be a more productive action. Ultimately, we must look at this article against its own merits which is not many. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal much, and therefore the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV required to meet our inclusion criteria. I don't mind Wikipedia having articles about notable university buildings, but I don't think it's better by having barely sourced ones where notability is questionable, or at least enough so to invoke WP:IAR. Also, to the creator of the page, I too would recommend the draft space for articles you're working on and I wouldn't discriminate against recreation of a new article if you were able to find more sources. Mkdw ^talk 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to the university page and then Redirect. There seems to be nothing that makes this building pass the WP:GNG in terms of historical, social, architectural importance. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/weak delete Fails WP:GNG and isn't really notable. Maybe userfy/put it in Draft:Ernest Oppenheimer Hall? MrWooHoo (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria including WP:GEOFEAT "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Derek Andrews (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building could easily and perhaps more properly be dealt with another article, maybe "Residences of ..". Notability may still be an issue, but it less likely to be viewed as problematic if it is not perceived as most likely becoming a perpetual stub. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Derek Andrews stated the reasons well, there is no evidence of notability, neither historic, social, economic, nor architectural. Few buildings achieve the level of recognition required fro notability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect since this place isn't particularly notable-- the university itself is CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.