Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford Roble Gym

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 Stanford University. As the article appears to have possibilities for merging and/or a stand-alone article I have preserved the edit history. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Roble Gym

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

This is simply a gym and not unique in any way neither based on the sources or claimed in the article. It is as notable as any of the immaterial buildings on any campus. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines nor is it properly sourced with multiple non trivial coverage. This rationale is based on the merits of this article alone and is not intended to be interpreted as prejudice nor retaliation against any participating editor. On its own this article does not stand. I have nothing against Stanford or this gym. It seems that it could be merged into the Stanford article if someone finds that to be useful. I do not. The article as written does not assert notability. It does not seem that this facility is notable in any way outside its relation to the university and notability is not inherited. FireTool87 (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This appears to be part of a series of bad-faith nominations by user:FireTool87, who was unhappy with my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma Pang (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#25 July 2011. In retaliation, on July 28 he nominated several articles created by me and another editor for deletion. One of the nominations was this article, which he nominated using his ISP account, User:184.164.148.90. It's possibly he nominated it by mistake; he may have confused it with Roble Hall which I did create. The nomination of this article was incomplete and so it was reversed [1] on July 29 by User:H3llkn0wz. All the nominations of my articles were speedy-kept as bad-faith nominations, and this one should be also. (The disavowal above may be justified, since in fact I had nothing to do with this article, but still, this article was originally nominated as part of the series). It looks as if the speedy-kept AfD discussions have been deleted (they were never properly listed at the AfD log) so I cannot link to them. Evidence of the situation can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review#25 July 2011 and at User talk:FireTool87. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad faith nomination. This article simply does not have any notability to it. I have informed all the editors and took the time to read into the right policies. It continues to not meet notability since it does not have multiple reliable sources. You cannot keep on article on wikipedia simply because one editor does not like the fact that I have nominated this article and I have made it clear this nomination is based on the article's merits only.FireTool87 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On its merits: The article as written is not very encyclopedic in style; that can be fixed. It is also not well sourced; that can also be fixed. Possible references include books see page 8 and historic newspaper articles going all the way back to the Los Angeles Times in 1904[2] and the San Jose Evening News in 1930.[3] --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining for the moment at least: Notability would be in its history as the women's gymnasium at Stanford University during the time when women's athletics was strictly segregated from men's athletics (pretty much up until about 1970). It could be merged with Roble Hall which was the women's dorm (the male equivalents were Encina Hall now an administrative building and Political Science department and Encina Gymn, torn down recently). However it also has importance as housing a dance theater (Roble Studio Theater) so may be inappropriate to merge with Roble Hall. --Erp (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't see any rationale to merge it with Roble Hall; if it is to be merged, it should be to Stanford University#Campus or Stanford University#Athletics. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research turns up virtually no independent secondary sources that discuss this gym. If someone can find some historian talking about the special role the gym played in the history of women's collegiate sports, fine. But I cannot find such a source. Merge, as suggested by MelanieN, into some other Stanford page. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stanford University. Referenced content can be Merged where appropriate, and it can be expanded upon. If it grows large enough the element can be spun out as a sub-article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the San Jose Evening News reference meetings the independence requirement of independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (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.