Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogers 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Hall

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

WP:BLURB, WP:PROMO, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS. It is a nice building I am sure but this is a house owned by a university in north alabama and it *could* be made a good article but currently it is just a blurb out of their PR department and so it should go until someone can make a NPOV, RS, article about it. Si Trew (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Agree with SimonTrew - no secondary sources cited at all, and I can't find anything online either. Fails

~~talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most large buildings constructed in 1855 and still standing would be considered notable, even in Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was no way that the nominator could have known before now, but the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I've now added that information and two supporting references. Altairisfar (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. I checked the register, but since it is one of the most user-unfriendly databases known to man, I couldn't find it as Rogers Hall! Note to the NPS: free text searches are a really good idea! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote here to keep after Altairisfar pointed out it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Personally I'm not convinced that being listed guarantees notability (the notability requirements for the National Register may be very different than Wikipedia's, so I don't see why we should adopt theirs), but I can see the building had some significant events occurring in the past that sufficiently meet
talk) 16:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the article is now properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has higher standards for inclusion than we do for notability, and it also has a whole lot of coverage in reliable sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:11, 5 March 2014 (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.