Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Palevsky Residential Commons

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. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Palevsky Residential Commons

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources TM 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment currently working on looking for sources. Here's one: [1] .— DroEsperanto (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is yet another of many, many articles on college residences that User:Namiba has either PRODed, redirected, or brought to AfD. I respectfully suggest that he build consensus at WikiProject Universities before proceeding on his mass deletion effort unilaterally. Racepacket (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let User:DroEsperanto look for sources. I don't see why the rush to delete these articles, and agree that this work should have been brought up at the WikiProject for comment first.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This huge architectural monstrosity generated quite a bit of negative press, unless I am mistaken. If no sources are forthcoming, renominate it. Speciate (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not legitimate reasons to keep an article. Either find the sources now for a stand alone article or it will be merged into the forthcoming article on housing at Chicago.--TM 06:36, 31 March 2010 (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.