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 Borough High Street#David Bomberg House. The "keep" !voters all fail to address which specific source(s) can be used to estabilish notability under WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bomberg House[edit]

David Bomberg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no justification of notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — there are plenty of references and the building has cultural associations with an artist of importance. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - verifiable likely notable, needs work, and is being rescued. –SJ+ 19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question : where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the coverage is about David Bomberg and the fact he has had a building named after him ? Mtking (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Many of the current sources though are dubious. Needs solid sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per lack of verifiable independent sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. The fact that a good third of the article is simply about the man it was named after (who seems to have no other connection to the actual building) is telling. Indeed, I find it odd that editors would argue that simply being named after someone famous implies notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has voted twice (see above). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was meant to go over my old comment, I guess when it didn't load the first time I accidentally added it to the end instead. I just deleted the old comment since it wasn't really as substantive.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please explain to me which sources show this is notable. From what I can tell, there are sources from the site of the school, which aren't independent, one that just lists the school's dorms, and one on ratemyarea.com. The sources about Paul Bomberg himself are totally unrelated to the subject of the article, and if they mention the building it's nothing more than "there is a dorm named after him". The only potentially acceptable one is from London Se1 community website, although that is about how a store below the dorm received a late night license; it is an incredible stretch to call this any more than trivial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources seem sufficient per GNG to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly? Which source possibly makes this sufficient to the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage.--Sloane (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Honestly, seriously, which of these sources are showing notability of the subject as per the GNG? It seems absurd that there are so many keep votes saying the sources are good; which ones are you referring to?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one gnews hit is hardly significantly coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I really want to give the keep !voters a chance to explain this before this closes. All of the votes saying the sources are good and this meets the GNG are essentially meaningless, since, quite frankly, they don't; please show me which source possibly meets these requirements. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Borough High Street#David Bomberg House The sources do not cover David Bomberg House in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:

  1. BNP Parabas Real Estate (July 2010). "Southwark Student Housing Study". List of halls in Southwark arranged by Institution. Southwark Council, London, UK. p. 13. Retrieved March 20, 2011. – This source is a directory of the numerous student housing facilities in Southwark. David Bomberg House is listed on page 13 and shares that page with another student housing facility. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.

  2. Boehm, Klaus; , Lees-Spalding, Jenny (2006). Student Book 2007. Crimson Publishing. p. 492. ISBN 9781844550739. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) – the subject receives merely a passing mention: "Campus accommodation offers four halls of residence: McLaren House, Dante Road, New Kent Road and David Bomberg House – pretty decent considering the location." David Bomberg House is not discussed in a significant manner in this source.

  3. "David Bomberg House". RateMyArea.com. Retrieved March 18, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) – this source is a directory listing.

  4. "David Bomberg House: Resident's Handbook 2006–07" (PDF). London South Bank University, UK. 2006. Retrieved March 20, 2011. – a student handbook, a primary source, cannot be used to establish notability.

  5. "The artist David Bomberg". Digital Ladywood, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) – this article's subject is David Bomberg, the namesake of the housing facility, which receives a passing mention: "One of the Halls of residences, David Bomberg House is named after him."

  6. David Bomberg Burton-on-Trent Bomb Store Picture to Sell at Bonhams, artdaily.org – the bottom of the source states, "(With information from Wikipedia)". Wikipedia mirrors do not pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

  7. "A Lasting Legacy" (PDF). Connected. 6. London South Bank University: 11–13. Spring 2009. – this article discusses David Bomberg the artist but fails to mention David Bomberg House.

  8. "Late night licence in Borough High Street granted despite dozens of objections". London SE1, UK. 9 December 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2011. ((cite news)): External link in |publisher= (help) – the subject receives only a passing mention: "A petition signed by 112 students living at David Bomberg House above the premises was also received and the building's freeholder London South Bank University formally registered an objection."

  The references are either primary source or passing mentions, neither of which enable David Bomberg House to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns one source (see ref #8 above) and a Google Books search returns two sources, one of which is ref #2 above and the other of which cites its source as Wikipedia. Generally, I would support deletion. However, there are plausible merge targets for this article. Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) has merged the article to Borough High Street#David Bomberg House, an action which I endorse per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added further news references concerning recent developments at the building. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of which are absolutely unacceptable at proving notability. They are two sources about a restaurant opened on the ground floor of the building, and that's literally the only mention. Basically, Cunard's comments on source 8 apply, only this time the mentions seem even more trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources demonstrate notability of the builiding in and of itself, and not just as a hall of residence of an important university. I also want to make some comments about the nomination process. Mtking has been tagging and nominating multiple article since recently setting up their account, in no cases have they attempted to improve the articles in question, to find sources demonstrating notability, or to engage others in discussion on the articles Talk pages first, and the multiple deletion discussions which have been brought about by them have wasted considerable time.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Sources demonstrate notability" doesn't really mean anything if they don't. Which sources do you think meet the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What counts as a suitable source is a matter of judgement and it appears there is no consensus here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a matter of judgement if none of the sources meet WP:GNG. Which source meets it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, since this can possibly close within the next few hours I want to ask one last time. Which source in this passes the GNG? (and preferably explain why Cunard's thorough analysis is incorrect). Seriously, I'm making this just about as easy as possible.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how, in your view, will the Wikipedia project be improved through the deletion of this article? I only ask because you seem so passionate about getting it deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good reasons why articles without inherent notability should at least meet the GNG, and why it's important this is enforced; there are quite a few essays and discussions on this that can be found with just a bit of searching. If you really want to know my personal opinions, I'm happy to give them, but ask on my talk page, since getting into that lengthy discussion would be going quite off topic here. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:39, 25 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.