Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towers 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. Sadly for university students, most dormitories are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Sandstein 09:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towers Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable dorm. All current references are non-independent. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show why this particular dorm is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it could also be expanded and moved to Halls of residence at Loughsborough University or the like. See Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom. Or is there some standard specific to dormitories / residence halls that could be suggested? --do ncr am 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi doncram, what's your rationale for your keep !vote? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to return. Maybe "Halls of residence" is also too narrow. The general problem is that there is a general, continuing pressure on Wikipedia for creation of articles on university buildings, because they loom large to potential student writers (our future...sigh). Supply (allowance to expand coverage) needs to meet, sort of, the demand, or odd things happen, like too-narrow articles emerge (perhaps this single dormitory building is one), and we're stuck with either crushing goodwill and initiative or accepting not-great topics padded with minutiae so they can seem article-worthy. Some balance can be achieved by creating a list-article that covers multiple buildings giving some appeasement but where coverage inflation can then be fought as a matter of editing. You have to see that there is a vast Category:University and college buildings including Category:Lists of university and college buildings and Category:Buildings and structures by university or college etc. etc. already. Category:Buildings and structures of Loughborough University (currently a redlink) is overdue.

Reviewing Category:Loughborough University for buildings and structures articles, I see Burleigh Hall, Loughborough Students' Union, Pilkington Library and also some articles like National Cricket Performance Centre and Centre for Renewable Energy Systems Technology that might be dual articles about an academic department and its building(s). How about 1) moving the Towers Hall article, the weakest of them all IMHO, to List of Loughsborough University buildings and structures, 2) editing the current material down into one section and 3) roughing out an intro and other sections perhaps organized geographically (e.g. group "East Park" ones together) starting with mini-sections linking to the already-existing articles? That gives recent and arriving local authors something to develop. This goes towards parity at other universities, doesn't offend by outright deleting anyone's work, and in the list context it seems fair to cut down the detail about this one building. I say keep the strong sentence

The building is a Locally Listed Building of important interest, its description on Charnwood Borough Council's record states that it is a "severe ‘modern’ high rise block comprising 2 towers of 22 and 18 storeys linked by a central access tower" and is significant for its "cold, grey modular pre-cast concrete construction".

and the floor layout picture, drop the duplicative verbiage about layout, edit down the rest. :) That's my two cents, I think translating to a "Keep, but rename and refocus into a list" vote. --do ncr am 06:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yikes, I didn't see subsection Loughborough University#Student halls with its table of 16 residences hiding in the university article's "Student Life" section. I say sweep that into the list-article, add a photos column, so all students feel represented (don't I sound patronizing?), limit all description of Towers Hall to the space of one largish box in a "Details" or "Description" or "Comments" column. --do ncr am 06:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I'm not confident this would be best moved to the university article itself as it's simply a hall. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the university article is not a suitable merge target...no mention, or practically no mention, is appropriate there. But a {{main}}-type link from the "Campus" section to a separate List of buildings and structures of Loughborough University is fine. --do ncr am 06:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GEOFEAT. No officially assigned status of cultural heritage or national heritage at a national level, no significant coverage in third-party sources to establish historical importance, and not general infrastructure. I don't see any content that is useful for merging into the main encyclopedia article beyond what's already there. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the Keep vote, from what I comprehend, is not suggesting this actually be kept and improved but instead moved to an article. Summarily, this is still questionable for the necessary improvements for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 24 April 2016 (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.