Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederickson Fieldhouse

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 Oklahoma City Stars men's basketball. Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederickson Fieldhouse[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Frederickson Fieldhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see the Notability, no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBUILDING 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete University structure demolished after just 40 years despite claims of architectural notability however newspaper sources appear to quote PR without WP:RS/fact checking; second half of article is incoherent. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Sources are all ROUTINE local news, it was built, it was used, it was torn down, ROUTINE news. Nothing showing N. Evidence of existence in newspapers does not equal encyclopedic notability.  // Timothy :: talk  12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies to events not buildings and thus your argument falls flat. This passes GNG as there are multiple articles focusing on the building. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't have to have "architectural notability" or last longer than 40 years to be notable. All that matters is that there is significant coverage in multile reliable sources, which there is. Garuda3 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Garuda3's argument (that the article meets GNG and that WP:ROUTINE does not apply) has not been adequately addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 I can't answer for the Gnome, but in my opinion this source (*OCU Fieldhouse To Be Dedicated On Wednesday) is fine for using to verify content but is not usable for notability purposes. There is no by-lined author and it is likely a reprint of a press release given to the media directly from OCU. Press releases, even if published by reliable secondary sources like The Oklahoman, are not considered "independent" from the subject as required by our policy at WP:GNG. Likewise, End of a landmark is clearly an advertisement piece to help the university sell items connected to the Frederickson Fieldhouse and it likely also lacks independence. The only quality source from The Oklahoman is This old house because it has a by-lined article, is independent, and would count toward GNG. Hope that makes sense. Some of the other Oklahoman pieces are better because they are independent with a named author. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks for explaining. Though I do think it's a rather extreme view to take for something as uncontroversial/harmless as a building. Garuda3 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3 Understandable. I think everyone feels that way when they are new or newish to deletion discussions. At WP:AFD everything gets scrutinized under a policy lens, largely because it would be impossible to have any consistency in the way we treat content inclusion without having policies to guide decisions. If you haven't read through WP:Notability I would suggest you do so. You will notice "Independent of the subject" is listed as a core rule in WP:GNG; so analyzing the independence of sources is a routine part of evaluating all topics in AFD discussions whether they are things, people, places, concepts, etc. We also have subject specific notability guidelines for almost everything; such as WP:NBUILDING. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe try and merge a bit to Oklahoma City University per other editors comments.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 13:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge/redirect to Oklahoma City Stars men's basketball which is a better target than the page on OKCU. The reliable refs above mention that this structure served as the team's basketball court from the time of its construction in the 1950s until the opening of the Abe Lemons Arena (incidentally another unreferenced article on a OKCU structure) in 2000. Clearly the structure can and should be covered in an article on the basketball team given it was the building hosting their games for nearly 50 years. I don't mind taking the responsibility of pruning out unverifiable content and only merging in content verified to the sources above into the article on the basketball team. 4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all about that target. -The Gnome (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested. I don't see how much will be written in the future about this structure. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (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/Frederickson_Fieldhouse&oldid=1149884576"