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. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attenborough Building

[edit]

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

Just a college campus building. No indication of independent notability and the article is woefully lacking in sources. WP is not a school project. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did anyone actually bother to search for sources for this award-winning building? Here's a few: Push Guide to Which University ("the Attenborough building, 18 storeys high, which won a design award"), Pevsner, Stimpson (1985) A field guide to landmarks of modern architecture in Europe, Murray & Trombley (1990) Modern Architecture Guide: Britain. It may not justify a standalone article, but would certainly be worth a section in the article on the University. Perhaps searching for a few sources would have been less effort than adding completely redundant ((cn)) tags to virtually every sentence in an article that is also tagged as ((unreferenced)). --Michig (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable building which dominates its setting. Warden (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely notable for the awards, let alone the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources outlined above. The ((cn)) template spam littering the article is really a bit silly. Also, the building is commonly known as the "Attenborough Tower" so I'm adding that to the find sources links above. Stalwart111 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia's notability criterias, but I agree with Michig; its not worth a stand alone article but could be incorporated within the main University page. It has some local notability nowhere near enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criterias; and the subjective assessment of "dominating its setting" has no bearing on notability for an article. It has no significant courage- in the sources listed above, Pevsner and Push Guide don't even afford it a full sentence, let alone the significant coverage of the subject directly in detail, required by policy. As for the award (singular), Push states it "won a design award", with no further elaboration -a single unnamed award is hardly notable. A google search finds pretty much zero other than the university's own page and a press release stating the water was turned off in the building for 2 days in Feb 2011- both of which are of course self-published and thus not proof of notability. Even the university's own page is thin, deeming the building worth only 3 short sentences. "Designed by Arup Associates and opened in 1970. It is named after Frederick Attenborough (1887-1973), Principal of the University College from 1931 to 1951. The Attenborough Tower contains one of the last working paternoster lifts in Britain." -and again, no mention of any award. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read Pevsner fully - that source contains more than a sentence and so passes WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)7[reply]

I did read it actually. And no, having more than one sentence does count as "significant coverage". A few minor mentions do not class as "significant coverage". The article quite clearly fails General Notability Criteria, and massively fails the "Notability requires verifiable evidence" rule as it has no references. --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, significant coverage is not required by any policy, and while you pick out a couple of sources that possibly don't give significant coverage, you seem to be ignoring Stimpson and Murray & Trombley, which likely do. Whether or not the award is significant enough to confer encyclopedic relevance is not something we can be sure of either way until we know what the award is. --Michig (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERRRRMMM.... Just to clarify, "significant coverage" is required by policy -it is the first point of the General Notability Criteria; which as the name suggests is the general policy by which we access whether a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not. And no I'm not ignoring anything -I considered all of the sources you mentioned when I made my assessment. And you say "likely do"... so you've not read these sources and thus don't know if the buildings are even mentioned in those sources, and as you admit, whether any mention is significant or passing.--Rushton2010 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy. It is a guideline. Yes the building is mentioned in those two sources - part of the entries on the building are visible in Google Books. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The building was opened when I was at the university. It is one of the major buildings of the university. I cannot provide sources other than my memory, but I see nothing inaccurate in the content. Leicester is not a city full of high rise buildings, which makes one of the few that there is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go read Wikipedia's policies. Sentimentality, memory and height are not part of wikipedia's notability criteria which the building fails. --11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, let's all agree on one thing — this piece sucks and needs to be improved and sourced out. Now, on to the real reason we are here — are there sufficient sources for this building to clear GNG? Carrite (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion in Stimpson (1985) A field guide to landmarks of modern architecture in Europe, cited by Michig above, definitely counts as one towards GNG. And THIS coverage on Skyscrapernews.com would seem to count as two... Carrite (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~MORE COVERAGE from Charnwood Arts. Hopefully of use to someone sourcing out the piece.~~ A Google search does indicate that Attenborough Tower (note common title) is a landmark of the university of which it is a part. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) - Whoops, lifted from WP. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a pretty close call. Merger to the piece on the University might be an acceptable outcome. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better references and citations, but it's obviously notable. Deb (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that it appears to be notable enough, but it definitely needs sources. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (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.