Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bomberg House

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

WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

David Bomberg House

David Bomberg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)

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

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry
Mtking (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no justification of notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there are plenty of references and the building has cultural associations with an artist of importance. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable likely notable, needs work, and is being rescued. –SJ + 19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question : where is the significant coverage in
Mtking (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep Many of the current sources though are dubious. Needs solid sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of verifiable independent sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. The fact that a good third of the article is simply about the man it was named after (who seems to have no other connection to the actual building) is telling. Indeed, I find it odd that editors would argue that simply being named after someone famous implies notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has voted twice (see above). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was meant to go over my old comment, I guess when it didn't load the first time I accidentally added it to the end instead. I just deleted the old comment since it wasn't really as substantive.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes
WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Please explain to me which sources show this is notable. From what I can tell, there are sources from the site of the school, which aren't independent, one that just lists the school's dorms, and one on ratemyarea.com. The sources about Paul Bomberg himself are totally unrelated to the subject of the article, and if they mention the building it's nothing more than "there is a dorm named after him". The only potentially acceptable one is from London Se1 community website, although that is about how a store below the dorm received a late night license; it is an incredible stretch to call this any more than trivial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem sufficient per GNG to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? Which source possibly makes this sufficient to the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage.--
talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Honestly, seriously, which of these sources are showing notability of the subject as per the GNG? It seems absurd that there are so many keep votes saying the sources are good; which ones are you referring to?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one gnews hit is hardly significantly coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I really want to give the keep !voters a chance to explain this before this closes. All of the votes saying the sources are good and this meets the GNG are essentially meaningless, since, quite frankly, they don't; please show me which source possibly meets these requirements. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I have added further news references concerning recent developments at the building. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are absolutely unacceptable at proving notability. They are two sources about a restaurant opened on the ground floor of the building, and that's literally the only mention. Basically, Cunard's comments on source 8 apply, only this time the mentions seem even more trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources demonstrate notability of the builiding in and of itself, and not just as a hall of residence of an important university. I also want to make some comments about the nomination process. Mtking has been tagging and nominating multiple article since recently setting up their account, in no cases have they attempted to improve the articles in question, to find sources demonstrating notability, or to engage others in discussion on the articles Talk pages first, and the multiple deletion discussions which have been brought about by them have wasted considerable time.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Sources demonstrate notability" doesn't really mean anything if they don't. Which sources do you think meet the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What counts as a suitable source is a matter of judgement and it appears there is no consensus here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a matter of judgement if none of the sources meet
WP:GNG. Which source meets it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, since this can possibly close within the next few hours I want to ask one last time. Which source in this passes the GNG? (and preferably explain why Cunard's thorough analysis is incorrect). Seriously, I'm making this just about as easy as possible.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how, in your view, will the Wikipedia project be improved through the deletion of this article? I only ask because you seem so passionate about getting it deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of good reasons why articles without inherent notability should at least meet the GNG, and why it's important this is enforced; there are quite a few essays and discussions on this that can be found with just a bit of searching. If you really want to know my personal opinions, I'm happy to give them, but ask on my talk page, since getting into that lengthy discussion would be going quite off topic here. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:39, 25 March 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bomberg_House&oldid=1220797288"