- 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 merge to Housing at Georgetown University. Black Kite 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnall Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a building which does not contain either a claim to notability nor multiple, independent sources. An attempt was made to redirect the article to List of Georgetown University buildings, but this action was disputed. TM 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, User:Namiba, the action was disputed. Blanking a page and turning it into a redirect without any discussion or warning isn't the way to go about acting on Wikipedia, despite your best intentions. If its not libelous or copyvio, there's no reason to delete it without discussion. I think you should put the twenty or so articles that you've done this to back to the way they were, and take them through normal Wikipedia routes like this if you feel their topic is a problem for you. Somebody clearly wrote the article, so they probably have an opinion on it, even if you disagree.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 21:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sort of routine local material used as references does not make the building notable--It's no more notable for having a Marriott carfteria than any Mariott cafeteria is notable. And it is being seriously proposed as being notable for not being known as the most sexually active dorm in the US? DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If all of the material from all of the articles which Namiba has sent to AfD were to be added back to List of Georgetown University buildings, it would exceed the size guidelines. The quality of some of the content may need work, but the building is notable. Racepacket (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is not sourced to any independent reliable sources. Thehoya.com sources are probably reliable, but not independent (not a nail in the coffin in my opinion), but they don't really feature the building, just the opening of a restaurant there. A Google search doesn't seem to turn up any independent and reliable sources. Overall, I do not see what makes this building notable. PDCook (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added more references. This was an early women's dorm built at a time when women were not admitted into Georgetown's liberal arts programs. Hence, the building has a unique history. The Hoya is a reliable source, although some may claim it is local coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly swayed by the new refs. I'm sure The Hoya is reliable, but I'm not seeing much depth in the coverage of Darnall Hall. Maybe the building has a unique history, but until sources (preferably independent) write about it, it doesn't really warrant a page on Wikipedia. PDCook (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added more references. This was an early women's dorm built at a time when women were not admitted into Georgetown's liberal arts programs. Hence, the building has a unique history. The Hoya is a reliable source, although some may claim it is local coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Because of these AfDs, I've been looking into creating a "Georgetown University student housing" article, but after looking at those kind of articles from other universities, I feel that, for now, the two individual articles are best. However, User:Namiba, if this article isn't kept, I expect assistance in creating that article and merging this one into it. And a merge is not just a redirect.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge into a generic Georgetown housing article. There've been a lot of these coming up lately, and every residence hall at every university does not warrant an article of its own. However collectively, they do. Which is why merging into article pages specific to the university makes the most sense. Obviously there may be the odd exception, but none of the Keeps above are making that argument. They're instead arguing that this is somehow an obvious keep. That's simply not been the consensus on most residence hall articles. I'm of the opinion that merging into a university housing article (or something similar) by far is the most reasonable compromise (lots of efficiencies, usefulness to the reader; i've made this argument elsewhere if you're interested). Otherwise, we're doing this piecemeal and it turns out to be whoever looks at the AfD first... and we get inconsistent decisions. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree wholeheartedly, Shadowjams. Consider List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls; it is a well written and well maintained article encompassing all of the residence halls at a large university. Not only does it save time by not having to maintain multiple articles, but it follows the guidelines for Wikipedia. Ofcourse, notable dorms should have their own articles, but this is the exception and not the rule. I've merged (and not just redirected as some have contended) a good number of articles to their proper places. We should continue doing this after these AfDs have run their courses.--TM 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Aren't we over-reacting to User:Namiba? A logical path would be for Wikiproject Universities to establish some consensus on how to treat college residence halls. If a university has a responsible wikiproject working for comprehensive, well-sourced coverage and it results in individual articles on dorms by groups or individual buildings, we should welcome that. Just as some TV series have articles on individual episodes or characters. I think that the essay which discourages articles about college dorms was prompted by the fact that a lot of wikipedia contributors are college students and their first impulse is to create an article about something familiar to them (e.g., their dorm.) We need to distinguish between the poorly-researched impulsive dorm article and articles that result in an effort to cover a university in a comprehensive manner. If User:Namiba had not unilaterally launched this crusade (only a small portion of which was brought to AfD), we would not be in this mode. I have no problem with the current level of coverage of the Georgetown dormitories and do not see any benefit in regrouping them into a single "generic Georgetown housing article." Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a matter of coverage in reliable and independent sources. If a dorm is only briefly mentioned in school newspapers, I can't see how it warrants its own article. Grouping them together is a reasonable alternative to deletion. PDCook (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be very amenable to taking that issue to the University project. I actually thought of doing that earlier myself but hesitated because I wasn't sure the right place. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A thread was already started about this. Input from others is most welcome. PDCook (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be very amenable to taking that issue to the University project. I actually thought of doing that earlier myself but hesitated because I wasn't sure the right place. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a matter of coverage in reliable and independent sources. If a dorm is only briefly mentioned in school newspapers, I can't see how it warrants its own article. Grouping them together is a reasonable alternative to deletion. PDCook (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Aren't we over-reacting to User:Namiba? A logical path would be for Wikiproject Universities to establish some consensus on how to treat college residence halls. If a university has a responsible wikiproject working for comprehensive, well-sourced coverage and it results in individual articles on dorms by groups or individual buildings, we should welcome that. Just as some TV series have articles on individual episodes or characters. I think that the essay which discourages articles about college dorms was prompted by the fact that a lot of wikipedia contributors are college students and their first impulse is to create an article about something familiar to them (e.g., their dorm.) We need to distinguish between the poorly-researched impulsive dorm article and articles that result in an effort to cover a university in a comprehensive manner. If User:Namiba had not unilaterally launched this crusade (only a small portion of which was brought to AfD), we would not be in this mode. I have no problem with the current level of coverage of the Georgetown dormitories and do not see any benefit in regrouping them into a single "generic Georgetown housing article." Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, back to the topic of merging. The point I'd like to make is that we'd be "merging" this article into a currently non-existent article named something like "List of Georgetown University residence halls". Until that article is created, I feel its better to keep this one around. Otherwise its more like just renaming this article, which isn't actually the worst option.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 29 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.