Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parran Hall

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 no consensus on Parran Hall, delete Graig Hall. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parran Hall

Parran Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod, with the following message left on the talk page "The 'article delete' templates were quite inconsistently applied to various University of Pittsburgh buildings, for the reason, "unnotable structure". Some less notable buildings and articles did not have them, so I have removed all those I saw, until such a time as they can be applied judiciously. In addition, is "unnotable structure" a reason to remove a page? ".

The building is a university building, built in 1958 and of no note.

Also nominating Craig Hall for similar reasons Nuttah68 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both and most or all articles in Category:University of Pittsburgh buildings. The information could be organized differently, but it is solid, referenced information, and needs not be deleted. Shalom ^Hello 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Craig Hall could be deleted, since it looks indistinguishable from any other office building of that ilk. As far as Parran Hall is concerned, on the surface it looks like it might have some architectural notability, at least as far as the statue is concerned. That's kind of a judgement call, though. Is it one of the more notable architectural works on the University of Pittsburgh campus? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comstock Hall for my reasoning there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a slightly expanded copyvio of [1]. Probably the rest of the text as well is somewhere on that site.
  • no, the rest does not all come from that site and is referenced, such as Albert's 1987 book.cp101p 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepStrong Keep Parran Hall as a significant building named after a significant person adorned with a significant art work. Alone, each would be marginal for Notability, but notability is cumulative, and the combined factors are sufficient. Neutral on Craig Hall, as this appears to be a fairly typical commercial building, and there is no claim of notability. Dhaluza 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have found evidence of notability for the sculptor, Virgil Cantini, and the sculpture is one of his significant works, making the building notable by association. Dhaluza 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no notability by association on Wikipedia. If the sculpture is notable it gets an article and Parran Hall is mentioned as the location. Likewise with being named after a notable person, just because St Peter was notable, not every building in the world named for him is. Nuttah68 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Where is it written that "there is no notability by association on Wikipedia?" There is no such consensus that I know of. One of the criteria for notability of schools is famous graduates, so there is a case of notability by association on Wikipedia. I don't think the sculpture by itself is notable enough for a separate article, but it seems appropriate to keep the article on the building with information on the sculpture and sculptor merged into it. Dhaluza 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have also found evidence of notability for the architectural firm Eggers & Higgins who worked on several other notable buildings. Dhaluza 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for Parran Hall, the art work on the front and notability of its namesake warrants its inclusion, as well as the location of the entire School of Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. There is no other building named after the former Surgeon General Parran so the St. Peter argument doesn't hold up. Parran Hall is a notable building in Pittsburgh and especially the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. It serves as a landmark sitting on a prominent location along a major roadway (5th Avenue) demarking the foot of the medical center complex behind it. Weak keep for Craig Hall, it is only included for reasons of completeness of the University's buildings, which as noted above, is quite complete, referenced and encyclopedic. Suggestions are welcome for better organization of Pitt campus building projects.cp101p 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Craig Hall This is easy-- it doesn't seem to have a notable architect, it has no artwork, it houses a miscellany of administrative departments. It wasn't even named after anyone, it was named for the street it's on. it is about as undistinguished as a building can be, and the most that is said above for it is that it should be kept because all the buildings on a campus should be kept. I see it rather as a clear demonstration of why not all buildings on a college campus are notable. WP is not a tour guide. DGG (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe one can make an good argument that WP does act as a tour guide in many situations. It is my understanding that the actual wikipedia policy is not to be a travel guide (including things such as addresses to restaurants and hotels and travel reviews or deals). WP does act as a historical tour guide in many instances, and one only has to look for examples of pages linked by succession boxes. In the panopoly of succession linked articles on heads of businesses, government offices, sports teams, and even colleges; let alone sports fields and structures and even transportation stations (eg. Sam Boyle and South Hills Village (PAT station) are hardly notable on their own), the inclusion of these is often more important for its encyclopedic nature than their notability. Therefore, WP can serve as a tour guide, either historically or physically, because of its encyclopedic nature. Linking both Parren Hall and Craig Hall by succession box according to University of Pittsburgh construction or acquisition dates may be a suitable way to address where they fit in to the WP organization. In any case, neither article has been given much time to acquire additional information. As a regular contributor to Pitt material, I for one do not live near their location and have no ability to research off-line sources of information...but being easily found on the web, especially for building created before the web was so prolific, can not be a sole determinant of notability.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Parren but rename to the name of the School. First, the building where an academic department or a school is located is not necessary notable from that very fact. Nor are all the buildings on a campus notable. Particular iconic or historic buildings are, if there are separate published works devoted to the building as such, which has not been demonstrated here. If the school is notable, the building can be mentioned--even with a redirect. In an article on the college, the more important buildings are normally mentioned. In a article on an architect, the more important building are mentioned. If the artwork is worth mentioning, it can be included in the article for the artist.

I see zero references on the building as a building. Nor is most of the article about the building--it's about everything connected: the firm who built it, the man it was named after, the graduate School it houses, the sculpture that is affixed to it. What probably is notable is the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, but there is no article on it. The individual Graduate Schools of a major university are probably notable. Sometimes, they will be in notable buildings. There are hundreds of buildings on the Pittsburgh campus, and some of them may well be notable, but it has to be shown by sources. Otherwise it will just duplicate all the entries: whatever parts of the university are separately notable will each need two articles, one for the college or school or whatever, and one for the building. DGG (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

perhaps not every building on a university is notable for its history or architecture, but that in itself does not necessarily make it non-notable. The definition of notability can come from many other factors including location, function, construction, architect, ownership, and even local prominence/visibility. This building, in its Oakland location, is clearly notable based on its location and facade to which is affixed the previously mentioned work of art. The sculpture is completely associated with the building, more than it is associated to anything else including its artist, and generally considered part of the building's facade. To give you an example, someone not knowing where the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or where to turn for the Petersen Events Center would easily be directed there by the looking for the building along 5th Avenue with the "funny abstract person hanging on the front", and locally it is typically used as such a landmark because Parren Hall's unique facade (and this can not be disassociated from the sculpture and vice versa) defines both the beginning of the medical campus and the western edge of the undergrad campus. In any case, an encyclopedic grouping of university buildings is clearly what originators of the University of Pittsburgh article were striving for, and this has many precedents in other WP categories as I noted above.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

what you specify is the function of the university web site, its maps, and its listing of directions to the various buildings. WP is not a campus guide. DGG (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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.