Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carman 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carman Hall

[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)

Sources are either affiliated or comprise a passing mention and do not meet WP:WISC. Lowering the bar of notability to this level would clutter Wikipedia with articles about college dorms that are more appropriate as sections of other articles. (proposed by Filetime) Filetime (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as it appears to be a storied structure, and would be consistent with existing articles on other residence halls of Columbia University (Hartley Hall, John Jay Hall, and Wallach Hall, which have not been nominated for deletion), but I would also be amenable to a merge, perhaps bringing the various halls into a single article. BD2412 T 06:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbia University#Students, where it was originally targeted, since it is mentioned there. There is simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes GNG. I actually grew up across the street from the Columbia campus, not that that has any bearing on this discussion. Just that this article did interest me, and I was hoping that there was enough coverage, but sadly there is not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would argue that the building is architecturally significant, considering the sources for the building's reception in the 1960s. Its reputation for its ugliness seems to have survived, looking at the "In popular culture" section. I'm don't have the time to look right now, but someone could definitely find more sources on that subject. I think there's a good case to be made that in addition to keeping this article, another one could be made for the contemporaneous Uris Hall, whose groundbreaking was picketed and covered by the NYT. 2601:196:4900:15CD:DC03:E7EF:7271:C945 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and thus WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument. If this is more appropriate as a section of another article, why wasn't a merge proposed? Appears to be discussed in multiple book sources (ignoring the citations in the "Notable residents" section) and a New York Times article and thus I feel notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been updated with more in-depth coverage (such as the New York Times article) added by other users since I first worked on this page. CatchedY (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (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.