Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll Hall (University of Notre Dame)

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 University of Notre Dame residence halls. Per Timothy’s vote, which is the best substantive policy based vote. So many keep votes are just assertions and opinion with no policy based arguments. Just voting carries little weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Hall (University of Notre Dame)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles about Notre Dame residence halls. I'll be sending them to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Should be a redirect to the list page, University of Notre Dame residence halls. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and you're wasting AFD editors' time if you don't link to all similar AFDs. And you should run only one or two, to test waters, so you can receive and listen to feedback instead of wasting others' time even more. And 2nd or 3rd nominations usually fail, as they should. How many are you running right now?

To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):

--Doncram (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. There is no reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks to be an interesting and notable place about which there is much to be written and a good start has been made. The nomination does not propose deletion and fails WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building, built in 1906, is over a hundred years old and hosted the novitiate of the Congregation of Holy Cross before it became a student dorm in the 1960s. The building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places with reference number ID78000053 in 1978. Its long history is well sourced, as well as it role in the university's history. Eccekevin (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any evidence that this should be deleted. LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 18:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the above keep !votes are based on policy. And the building, as was pointed out in the nom, is not on the NHRP rolls, but is part of a district which is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are based on policy. It's a well sourced article for a historic building built in 1906. As even if it is not directly part of the NHRP, it still is in the historic district. Eccekevin (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Onel5969's claim is remarkably false as I cited several policies above and here's another one: WP:PRESERVE. It's the nomination that doesn't cite any policies – just GNG which is a mere guideline and so weaker than policies. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target. // Timothy :: talk 09:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on the page showing significant coverage. Eccekevin (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer about canvasing: Unfortunately Eccekevin is canvasing for participation in this AfD. [1],[2]. // Timothy :: talk 10:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources to improve the page in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eccekevin, that's called canvassing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this dorm is again, part of the NRHP district and should be kept as an article on one of those properties. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funandtrvl, can you point to the sources that provide direct and indepth coverage of the subject required by SIGCOV? It is obvious not everything in a historic district is notable. // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The above editor was canvassed for there vote [3]. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed (Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out that he thinks that I was canvassed, (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). I believe he was trying to discredit my opinion, when it differed from his opinion. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Andrew Davidson. Very good and interesting article, same as 20 similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. Is the fact that it is not on the NRHP the only reason for deletion? Note: I was NOT canvassed. --Silverije 23:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverije, Looks like this is your first time at AfD [4], you picked an interesting time and place to start. // Timothy :: talk 01:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and a big welcome to the fascinating wikiworld of afd Silverije, the more the merrier Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolabahapple, thanks for bringing a smile to me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no probs Onel5969, i would have also included a welcome kitten here but some afd editor would have probably kittynapped it:). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete) to University of Notre Dame residence halls. Do not see any reason for a separate article, further lots of primary sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of sources that are not primary, and many that are related to the university but independent of it. Eccekevin (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I find this to be a very good article that is useful the way it is. With 59 references, there is no reason to merge into University of Notre Dame residence halls. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG as notable historic building w/ refs. Djflem (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article on an historic building. I can't see any useful reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like for other similar AFDs. There has not been any bad-type canvassing as far as i know, and i didn't see any of it before arriving here, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2021 (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.