Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramsay Hall

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Coldplay and "cheap place to stay" are poor arguments for retention, but the awards and other sources may be indicative of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsay Hall

[edit]
Ramsay Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry. Mtking (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - A large and architectural notable building right in the centre of London.[1] Also one of the oldest and most well-known student halls of residence of a major university which has seen notable individuals stay there.[2], [3] Also used as a hostel outside of term time, for which further third party coverage is easily found: [4], [5]
A natural break-out article from the main UCL article, which does not have space for a detailed treatment of the topic of this article.
I should add, to follow up on the comments of Boing! said Zebedee, that Mtking has over the last 24 hours shown a desperation to get this article deleted, repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion tag and then immediately recommending for deletion. The 'promotional' comment is highly curious when one looks at the actual content of the article, and in any case that is a clean up issue rather than a notability one. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't want to say you're wrong about its notability, I do have to take issue with the links you presented. 2 and 3 are just articles about Coldplay that mention that the band met in the hall. 4 and 5 are travel guides, simply mentioning that the hall is a good place to stay for cheap. These are all unacceptable as sources to assert notability. The first link is certainly much more usable; however, it seems to simply mention the building on a list as an example of a type of architecture. It looks like it's just a mention in a footnote, not coverage in the main text. I apologize if I'm being too frank, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong in your claims, but you're going to need much stronger links to prove them. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources which I have provided above in my view more than demonstrate notability when taken together. Why are travel books not acceptable sources under WP policy? I never claimed that the articles in the Guardian and Times Higher Education were solely or even mainly about Ramsay Hall, that does not mean that they are not capable of being used in combination with other sources to help demonstrate notability.
The recent refurbishment is also noteworthy, as the builiding is in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area and the project won an award: [6], [7]. The building has been the subject of artistic interest: [8]. It has undoubtedly been mentioned in other architeture books than the one linked above, but it is not easy to find these simply from google. However the reference in the above book is rather more than a footnote and demonstrates that the builiding is of architectual interest, beyond the interest which it has through its purposes and history.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said all of these sources could not be used; rather, I said that they could not be used to assert notability. Travel guides can be fine sources, but "this is a good cheap place to stay" is not an assertion of notability. Likewise, multiple sources with incredible trivial mentions do not combine together to create overall notability. In regards to your three newest links, I have some other issues. 6 is from the Camden London Borough Council, basically the equivalent of a local city council, and it is a list of projects from the past two years recognized as being sustainable. While this would be noted in the article, it in no way establishes notability, as it is a minor recognition. 7 is the page for the project on the architect's website; I'm not sure why you linked that one, as it obviously doesn't count as outside coverage. 8 is better, but seems to be a page listing a photograph in the Conway Library at the Courtland Institute of Art. This is a collection of thousands of architectural photos, designs, and other works. While the collection as a whole is incredibly significant, the individual photos that comprise it do not automatically have subjects that are notable. I'd suggest reading up on the notability guideline for what types of coverage would be considered more acceptable. Once again, I apologize if I'm coming on too strongly, but I'm just trying to be clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction reference 6 is from SiteLines, a magazine published by the LABC, not by Camden Council. And coverage in travel guides is perfectly acceptable as reliable third-party coverge. 7 was more for interest but the architects' practice is independent of the subject and would be perfectly acceptable to provide details of the project for the article (as would this for another project on the builiding: [9]).
It is important to note that with this article we have the additional important factor that it is a natural break-out from University College London, a very long article about a subject of undeniable notability. It is simply not practical to properly cover the subject of this article in that article. And there is much to say about the subject of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's the Camden Council's report published on the LABC's site magazine. Point still stands, it's not significant coverage. In regards to travel guides, I basically can't be more clear; a guide saying "stay at a dorm like this one, it's cheap" absolutely does not give any sort of notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not right, it is a magazine published by the LABC. The point does not stand, it is completely counter-factual and irrelevant. Travel books are absolutely acceptable as sources for demonstrating notability. Period. Unless you can tell me where it says here that travel books are different from any other type of book: Wikipedia:NotabilityRangoon11 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I struck site and changed it to magazine, but this minor mention still does not give notability. And honestly, if you can't see why the mentions in the travel guides do not count as more than trivial coverage, I give up, there's no convincing you of the obvious.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, not policy. And this is not merely a 'dorm' but a notable building in its own right in a conservation area in the centre of a very major city, with multiple uses.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an essay, but articles of those types are very, very likely to be deleted unless the subject is truly extraordinary. You've yet to prove otherwise to anyone's satisfaction but your own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true I am convinced as well using WP:GNG. Subjects do not need to be "truly extraordinary", they need to be notable (which is POV of course), especially as Wikipedia expands. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to note that the article has been completely re-written from an architectural standpoint, so the "promo" and "only claim is that famous people stayed there" concerns appear to have been addressed. (I'm not familiar with the community's general feel on notability of buildings, and don't have any strong opinions myself either way, which is why this is only a Comment). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the UK, which has countless buildings hundreds of years old, and quite a few older even than that, a dorm built in the mid-1950s is of no particular historical value. Hell, the house I grew up in is older than that, as are dozens of others in the same neighbourhood. This is simply a random, unremarkable building that someone made an article on because they thought it would be fun to put their dorm on wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The age of the building is irrelevant and has never been mentioned as a factor for its notability. And, to reply to your posting above, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy stating a requirement for a builiding (or anything else) to be 'truly extraordinary' to merit an article. The motives of those who first created the article are also completely irrelevant. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient notability in reliable sources, including the LA Times, with enough information for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this building on any Heritage or Important building list ? Has it won any design awards ? Because if the answer to either is no then I fail to see what is so special about this that it warrants an encyclopaedia entry. Mtking (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the article as rewritten since you made the deletion nomination then you will see that the building has won an award. However the criteria which you have given for yourself are not Wikipedia criteria for notability. Notability is demonstrated by the citations now in the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was looking for something more than an award from the local council. And the Wikipedia page on Notability says "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." and if this building is not on any Heritage or Important building list or not won any major design awards I don't see how it can be "worthy of notice" for an encyclopaedia. Mtking (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's your own criteria, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Many listed buildings in the UK, of which there are over 350,000, would not qualify for a Wikipedia article because there is no third party coverage. However many buildings which are not yet listed, would. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lets look at it the other way, what (other then being the meeting place of a English alternative rock band Coldplay, BTW the authors of that entry don't even find that fact noteworthy) makes this building in your opinion worthy of notice ? Mtking (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The award to which he refers is the borough council's recognition of the "most innovative and sustainable construction projects completed in the borough over the past two years." By no stretch of the imagination is being on this list considered a prestigious award giving automatic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Local awards do not demonstrate wide notability; they can be sourced in a notable article but don't demonstrate why the whole of mankind should know about this. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While several third-party sources, they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level (name-drops are not appropriate for this, nor are, effectively, advertisements for its accomodations). Do we even know why it was named "Ramsay Hall"? This seems like an appropriate section in a larger article on the architecture of the university, but doesn't work as a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level' - I've no idea what this means, none of the sources are from local media. There isn't currently an article on the architecture of UCL, if there were then I agree that this could perhaps be merged into it. Merging this into the main UCL article would be ridiculous. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into University College London - the building is "note worthy" but not "notable"... in other words, the building is worth mentioning (noting) within in the context of our article on the College, but it does not reach the level of notability we require in a topic for an article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the building has won an award and is well-referenced with historical information. There is enough worthwhile referenced information for a standalone entry that would not be appropriate in a merged article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what notable history you're referring to? Being designed? Being constructed? As for the award, I really hope that it's triviality has already been addressed above. As nice as it was for Rangoon to personally ask you to come here and argue for this to be kept, I would hope you'd be a bit more specific.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear, I have never had any contact with Jonathan before today and it was quite possible that he could have come here and voted to delete, or not come here at all. I had no real way of predicting. Or indeed he may well have come here anyway. It is a perfectly normal and appropriate thing to let an editor know about a concurrent deletion discussion on a very similar subject, particularly when the editor who commenced the AfD was the same in both cases, and there are similar concerns in each as to process followed. And I didn't actually ask him to vote one way or another, anyhow.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe this article passes WP:GNG. This is a judgement call of course and the fact that there is such a discussion on this AfD indicates that there is no consensus. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've created Halls of residence at the University College London. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG, and to top it off - Coldplay met whilst living at the hall! Totally notable. Onthegogo (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A different building by that name in London got coverage over a hundred years ago for a place where musicians gathered. [10] Was the new building named after that? Are the awards and mention of it notable for a building? Times Higher Education says "Archetypal of the modern era is Coldplay, one of the biggest bands in the world, who happily admit that they first met and jammed in the stairwells of Ramsay Hall after enrolling at University College London." [11] Sounds like a notable event took place there. The most evidence to its notability, are the links Rangoon11 found to reliable sources that cover architecture that give it full coverage. Dream Focus 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No decent sources establishing notability. "Coldplay slept there", is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in an AFD. As stated above me "there's a reason why "your dorm" one of our listed bad article ideas".--Sloane (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't just sleep there, they lived there, met each other, formed their band, and created their first music there. Dream Focus 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, still not impressed. If you want to include that factoid in the Coldplay article go ahead, but further it doesn't lend any notability to the building.--Sloane (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. WP:INHERITED. It's a perfectly good factoid, but not one that gives notability. Otherwise, we'd have countless "Band X's basement" and such.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Coldplay citations are just two of many in the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 23 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/Ramsay_Hall&oldid=1265473167"