Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performing Arts Building

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts Building

[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)

This article should not stand on its own, and its content is already a part of List of Reed College buildings. There is no evident notability that it passes the GNG independently, and SIGCOV is absent. Also proposing that the old article becomes a redirect to the entry if possible. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Oregon. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). The topic has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources detailing design, budget cut, construction, opening ceremony, recognition, etc. The article should be expanded not deleted. (Also, acknowledging the Opsis website cannot be used as a source, there's a list of 10 awards which have recognized the building's design.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't all this be included in List of Reed College buildings? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If editors were to fully flesh out the article based on all available sourcing, I think there would be too much content to shove into a table cell. So, no, hence my keep vote based on amount of secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not WP:DIY? The current revision as of writing this reply still looks like it can be condensed into the table. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the same to you, why not WP:DIY? I don't wish to drop the other things I'm working on just to flesh out this article right now because that's what you want. Articles for deletion is not place to force editors to expand pages to their fullest potential. You're focused on the current text fitting in the table, but that's not the point. Think of the potential for this individual entry and assess notability based on all available coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has too much potential aside from a few trivial awards. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 decent sources, "building's design has also been recognized by the AIA Education Facility Design Awards" indicates individual notability, makes sense for it to have its own article with photo and infobox. Would be good if it could be destubbed of course but think it's fine as a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the AIA award is sufficient for notability, but this article should be retitled more specifically. I couldn't begin to list the institutions that have a "Performing Arts" building on their campus. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 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.