Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room

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 per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation room

[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)

The article has existed for 16 years and has never contained a citation. It was flagged as requiring citations 13 years ago!!! and no-one has ever bothered to provide any. Considering the duration, it is reasonable to conclude that no-one will ever be interested in fixing the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy for the existence of an article (WP:VERIFY). It is being nominated for deletion because the request for citations has failed, having been ignored for such an egregious duration. In addition, the topic is adequately explained at WIKT:recreation_room. — O'Dea (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a clearly notable subject. See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Will see what I can do to add citations however the talk page discussion seems relevant here. As Andrew D has stated: refer to the essay WP:BLUE. Lightburst (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Obviously a notable topic, but the article as it is now doesn't have value. Some work needs to be done. Does anyone know what textbooks architects and home decorators use in colleges and trade schools to learn about designing a proper recreational room? Are there trade magazines that talk about these things? Dream Focus 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC) updated from question to keep because reliable sources have been found and added to the article. Dream Focus 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG. See, for instance, Encouraging experiences of reading and recreation rooms (1899) Designing a Children's Recreation Room We Aren't Nearly So Tired: The Metamorphosis of a Students' Recreation Room Drafting and Design for Architecture & Construction, Material Culture in America: Understanding Everyday Life Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "This article has been tagged with citation needed for x years!" is false drama. WP:IMPATIENT says that there is no citation-needed expiration date that makes a subject non-notable. Eddie891 clearly shows that the subject is covered in architecture and sociology texts. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG. I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement.

Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated the article as 7&6=thirteen suggested Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article may have been unsourced at the time of nomination, but a quick look shows there are plenty of reliable sources regarding rec rooms, several of which have already been added to the article by Lightburst. And, there are even more when you look for sources under some of the other regional names for this type of room like "rumpus room". Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rorshacma. Article is amply sourced, and there are lots more where they came from. Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cant delete articles for notable topics because their articles are bad.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before. The existence of the very short Wiktionary article does not make this article an irrelevancy or provide a ground to delete it. Article should be improved, but ample sources exist! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:54, 17 June 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.