Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allard 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 merge to Peter A. Allard School of Law. Since the content of the article has been improved since the initial backlash against merging, and those editors haven't been back in weeks, I think it's appropriate to do so now. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allard Hall

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

Fails GNG; sources are mostly SPS and was created as part of a promotional campaign around UBC's law school. Merge what is usable here to University of British Columbia Faculty of Law and redirect. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, tentatively. It was a big deal that the new law school was built, it seems. The building design received a number of awards. Although too-promotional fluff needs to be edited out of the article, it appears to me that there is decent sourcing to cover more about the previous building (a brutalist structure) and the need and the fundraising and this one's design, etc., more than is comfortably contained in the Faculty of Law article. I was not previously familiar with this example, but I know of other similar prominent replacements of older university buildings by LEEDS-certified cool new ones, which rightfully generate a lot of local/regional/state-or-province-level coverage. It remains a subjective call whether to have a long section about the building in the faculty of law article (with a redirect) or have it as a separate article.
By the way, applying the Google Scholar search above (with addition of "-Rokeach"), I find this undergraduate thesis or course paper which is a Life Cycle Analysis (a kind of environmental impact statement) about the building. It might or might not have factual information to add to the article.
This could have been handled by an editor simply editing and choosing to implement a merge, or editing but finding a merge to be awkward, without an AFD beforehand. However, given there is an AFD open, and without editing completed that would have reduced the material somewhat, we should judge what we think would be the right length of coverage as too much or not too much for the Faculty of Law article. --doncram 07:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that thoughtful response. I considered just doing the merge and redirect BOLDLY but this is fairly long (mostly puffery) and there has been some fierce conflicted/promotional editing at the main article on the law school, and I didn't want to be accused of gutting or cause drama; this seemed the best process to follow in this instance. I do think it is a no brainer Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. pure advertisement for the school -- and the architect. Nothing distinctive about the building, no major awards (The first is just a finalist, not an award; the 2nd very local and very specialized "Commercial Building Award, Community-Educational/Research category, 2012, Real Estate Board of Vancouver)" ; the 3rd veryspecialized " Educational category, 2012, Masonry Design Awards" not even saying who awarded it; the 4th extremely specialized trade group -Silver, Educational category, 2012, Brick Industry Association. No significant nonlocal third party coverage. An undergrad thesis is not a RS. It should be mentioned in the article on the school, but not as a merge--we should not be keeping the altogether promotional content in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: R E: No significant nonlocal third party coverage The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post are NOT local. As a matter of fact they considered the top papers in all of Canada. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Thanks for adding new material to this article. The materall from the National/Financial post article was already in the sections blanked by the nominator - is it really wise to keep re-addimg stuff that has been blanked? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
I am fine with deleting. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete (changed !vote; see below). Frivolous nomination; not even true that "sources are mostly SPS"; some yes, but most are reliable, secondary sources that are sufficient in number, including from The Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, and an architecture magazine, proving notability. I corrected one malformed link and edited the lead to remove gratuitous peacock text such as "some of the most extensive and innovative", which I believe addresses the "pur advertisement for the school" issue mentioned above. —Prhartcom♥ 16:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not frivolous. The building is not notable outside of the PR campaign. See WP:PROMO and WP:RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, as it meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sounds like you are confusing notability with promotion. —Prhartcom♥ 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was some press as part of the same PR campaign that resulted in this WP article; hence RECENTISM. There is no enduring notability for the building outside of the initial PR campaign. It is a fairly generic academic building. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Re:Yes there was some press as part of the same PR campaign Are you suggesting that publications such as the Globe&Mail, Financial Post and the Vancouver Sun publish articles for a fee? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
That would be silly, wouldn't it. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the job of good PR people to convince such newspapers to create such articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed some copy editing and found blatant copy violations, which would need to be corrected if the article is kept. —Prhartcom♥ 16:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the people who created this article did not care about WP and its policies. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the General Notability Guideline that specifically addresses whether an article can be kept or deleted and talking only of guidelines that are unrelated to whether an article can be kept or deleted. An article such as this one can be proven to be notable based on its coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources and still have other problems such as puffery and promotion. Now, the copyright violations that I uncovered are serious, more serious than the issues you raised. We may need to delete the article because of them, but the article can also be rewritten. —Prhartcom♥ 17:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, N addresses what we do when there is just a spurt of news about something. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there seems to be some confusion here. WP:N is a general guideline that applies in principle to all sorts of articles except for those cases where other rules apply or exceptions are made--and there are quite a few special situations where we either assume notability (as for those who hold major elected offices) or have additional requirements. The tricky parts of the guideline is the requirement that the sources be substantial, reliable, and independent--each of these words needs interpretation and most of the disagreements in AfD discussions are about these requirements. There is also a provision that even if something is notable, if there is not enough information for a separate article it can be combined into another article. (in this particular case the first question is whether the sources are based on press releases, in which case they are not independent of the subject; the second question is whether, even if the sources are OK, it warrants a separate article). These are to some extent matter of judgment, and we decide by consensus.
The other rule which jytdog mentions is WP:NEWS, which says that we do not make an article for an isolated news event of no general interest or long term significance. If the sources only concerned the opening ceremony, we might use this rule to justify not making an article. But since I think this article is about the building as a whole, that part doesn't really apply . DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You had me going for a minute there DGG, until you tried that last point. Let's just go ahead and agree that the wp:NEWS argument is silly: When it comes to something as unchanging as a building, reliable secondary sources are fine if they mostly come from the news articles covering the building's opening, especially if we're lucky enough that this moment took place relatively recently. Very little will be published about any building over its existence. An article that is published because the building was just completed is a perfect chance to snag some badly needed reliable sources about the building that will ever be in existence. My vote is still Keep.
Thanks very much for the other points you made earlier in your reply; those are wise words and I will not soon forget them. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a notable building can be notable from the start, if it is widely acclaimed as such , with evidence such as winning a major prize at a national level, or if the building is for non-architectural reasons (political, cultural, etc., so important that it will be written about it that connection, as are most national parliament buildings however undistinguished the architecture) . Most becomes notable later when architects and historians study them extensively, which usually occurs over a long period of time--in many cases, centuries. Here this is not being written about as improtant, just that the money was paid and the building built and named accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite frustrating. This is a nondescript building that was hyped due to the donation and re-branding of the school. Yay for the Peter A Allard Law School PR team. This article is pure WP:FART. Phartcom what in the world do you see as mattering about this building? Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Delete. I'm sure it is frustrating to see your only argument destroyed. Anyway, I've decided to change my vote based on the massive amount (77%) of copyright violation the article has, that neither of you mentioned but that I mentioned I had noticed above, shortly after I had !voted (See Earwig's Copyyvio Detector). The whole article is apparently undeclared WP:COI editing as it was contributed by a W:SPA, an alumni of the school. Look at sentences like "The program included remarks from the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin (McLachlin's speech); the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, the Honourable Steven Point (Point's Speech); UBC President Stephen Toope (Toope's speech); and the two major donors to the building project, Allard and the Law Foundation of British Columbia (LFBC Sasges' speech)"; not only was that and many other sentences copy-and-pasted word-for-word from the "About Us" page of the official website, the copy violator didn't bother to remove the parenthetical mentions of speeches that are each links to the speeches in the original. The subject may be barely notable, but more than three-fourths of the article cannot be kept and would need to be rewritten. I don't see anyone willing to do that, so a drastic step must be taken: Delete. I doubt anyone will miss it. —Prhartcom♥ 13:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with DGG's analysis, there's still notihng actually convincing for a solid independently notable article and examining the article found nothing minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional quotes indicating promotionalism "Allard Hall provides students and faculty with an inspiring setting for the study of law" "making the campaign the most successful private fundraising effort in history for a Canadian law school building""Mr. Allard stated "Ever since my days at UBC, I have possessed a strong belief in the enduring and transformative power of a legal education, and I believe this profession provides for the long term greater good of society" (Allard's speech is also available in French, Spanish and Chinese. You can also read his interview on ethics with the Legal Eye) " Most of the actual information in the article is a long list of the altogether routine features of any 21st century library: or ordinary class building design "The main feature of the building is the Franklin Lew Forum. " i.e., it has an auditorium. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it may then be the most expensive law school building ever built in Canada, which is an assertion of some notability. :)
I am not studying this out to reconsider my "Keep" !vote, but it is a drag if the article was basicly copyvio, and maybe it should be deleted. --doncram 02:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and since then the nominator has blanked out almost the entire article including my edits and those of 19 other editors. 00:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning away from a plain keep, but the notion of a merge or redirect is very new to the debate, so I'll give it another week to be explored. Users may also feel free to possibly be WP:BOLD and merge the content now. KaisaL (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep, because my quick search produced multiple, RS on notability. Not unusual for a new building at a major school to be notable in our ear of statement architecture. Give me a little time to source, expand article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I added a design prize (not first place, but a real prize) form the American Library Association. Also articles from the Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun and other papers. This got national coverage, and I cannot agree with editors above that when the Globe and Mail runs an article on a building it can be dismissed as "promotion." All books, buildings, boasts about the gifts of big donors are pitched to journalists and editors. When a major newspaper like the Vancouver Sun chooses to assign a reported story, it is evidence of notability. I am aware that the article was created as a PROMO for the Law School. Nevertheless, major buildings can, and often should, have articles. This one has the regional and national sources to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am continuing this discussion at the bottom of the page for the convenience of newcomers to this page. First, a confession: I had not looked at the history of the article, merely, I looked at the article topic/the building. I can respect User:Jytdog's decision to bring the article to AFD rather than have a Merge proposal on the page, a building on this scale built by a major Law School and designed by a major firm is, after all, not unlikely to be notable. What I do not understand is @Jytdog, Ottawahitech, and DGG: why, given that this was being brought to AFD, major national media like the Globe & Mail; National Post; Vancouver Sun were deleted. At the very least, this makes it more time-consuming for editors to fairly evaluate notability; at worst it can lead to deletion simply because editors new to the page could easily have taken it for mere PROMO by the school or the architect, as some editors appear to have done (one states below:"Not enough content supported by WP:RS for a standalone article;" a statement that is prima facie incompatible with sourcing in major national media)) and as I very nearly did. I hope that @Doncram, Prhartcom, MelanieN, and KaisaL: and others will revisit, and that some fresh editors will take a look, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Peter A. Allard School of Law per nom. The article is much improved from when it was nominated, and is now better than the corresponding paragraph in the law school article. I believe the topic can be adequately covered in the law school article, and does not need a stand alone article, but useful work that should not be discarded has been done in the hall article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2016 (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/Allard_Hall&oldid=1137555365"