Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Corridor (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 keep. There appears to be sufficient coverage to support either an article on the Infinite Corridor or on MIThenge. Where exactly the material should go is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Corridor[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While certainly more interesting than most school corridors, I struggle to believe this is considered notable beyond maybe a sentence or two in Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I understand this article has been at AfD 10 years ago and passed based on a few clickbait-y headlines in some smaller outlets about "MIThenge", beyond that this hallway has never had significant coverage in secondary sources, a few passing mentions here and there though. If kept at least half the article likely needs trimming. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could stand a thoroughgoing edit, but independent and reliable sources exist that are more than clickbait or passing mentions (e.g., [1][2], plus the Hapgood and Coyle book sources already in the article at least). At worst, this is a candidate for a selective merge to the article mentioned in the nomination, per WP:ATD. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may need cleanup but we have WP:RS even if someone needs to tag the article about the lack of sources cited. --Micky (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should stay with significant editing. A cleanup tag should be suggested. As was noted in the original AFD nom, the corridor has 674 book mentions, 145 scholarly mentions, and popular press coverage in Wired, Buffalo News, Kansas and Dallas, as well as the Boston Globe obviously. Also featured in a book title. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SerAntoniDeMiloni. It does meet notability, and though it may need work, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. On a slightly unrelated note, I recall this corridor also being featured in Good Will Hunting, and is also the subject of mention in other films and books. Yes, most of the current sources aren't great or independent, but independent ones do exist, as SerAntoni has pointed out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a factual clarification for SerAntoniDeMiloni and ProcrastinatingReader, none of those numbers are right, even if they are blatantly copy-pasted from the first AfD. Your own Google Books link returns 8 unique results when excluding duplicates and cross references. The "145 scholarly mentions" are almost exclusively superfluous remarks in acknowledgments such as While walking through the Infinite Corridor, the main artery that connects MIT’s buildings, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ handed me a free copy of The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. None of them are in depth, independent, secondary sources. They are almost exclusively from papers written by MIT students mentioning random anecdotes, not actually discussing the corridor itself, and are therefore irrelevant. The Wired article is by an MIT alum, is two paragraphs long and exclusively discusses the MITHenge event. The Buffalo News article mentions the corridor in one sentence of a length article about Harvard, MIT and Cambridge in general (archived version) and in no way represents in depth coverage. The Kansas and Dallas article is (archived here) once again a single sentence mention in a lengthy travel article about Cambridge and does not represent in depth coverage. Exact same story with the Boston.com article, a passing mention in an article about Cambridge [3] (note that Boston.com is the local news version of BostonGlobe and has lower editorial standards too). The book was written by a non-notable MIT employee and once again doesn't provide any in depth coverage. I would appreciate more thought than linkbombing useless articles from a previous AfD debate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6 Note that I mentioned that those figures came from the original AfD. (The post was by Madcoverboy, who may have some input?) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2020 (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.