Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Main (Texas State University)

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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Main (Texas State University)[edit]

I do not believe the building is notable enough for its own article. I think information regarding the building would be better placed in the "Campus" section of the Texas State University-San Marcos article. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, unreferenced and mostly copied from school website. – Zedla (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt of notability as this building is on the National Register of Historic Places, which has higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. There is certainly enough topic-specific content to warrant its own article as well as too much to be merged in the the already sizable Texas State University–San Marcos one. Just because a notable building is located within a larger complex doesn't mean that building doesn't deserve its own article. Grady Gammage Memorial Auditorium at Arizona State University, College Hall at the University of Pennsylvania and Thackeray Hall at the University of Pittsburgh are excellent similar situations. --Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything on the National Register has already been judged notable by an arduous and well-documented process that allows for easy verification of information regarding the physical structure and its history and significance. See also List of Old Main buildings for background information on why this would be significant even if not on the National Register. Drawn Some (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial book coverage: Architecture in Texas, many other book results, many news articles seem to have been written about the building. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, since it is a listed building. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Building on Nation Register, has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National Register is close enough to an award to meet that yardstick. The best approach to this article is to expand and refine, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is on the NRHP - it went through an extensive review and vetting process. Not every building is eligible for the Register. NRHP listing is prima facie evidence of notability. Einbierbitte (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Register of Historic Places are inherently notable. Sebwite (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (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.