- 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. Tone 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Constantine 1 University ( | 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)
The only reference in the article is to another Wiki type website about the places architecture and I couldn't find anything else about it when I did a WP:BEFORE. Also the article about it in Arabic isn't any better. So I doubt this passes the notability guidelines. Maybe someone can find references I missed when I looked though. The rather ambiguous name really doesn't help things. Adamant1 ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. There are some architects who are so notable that pretty much all their works are notable too. Oscar Niemeyer is one of those architects. In addition to the fact that we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A 15-page chapter about this should be sufficient, I hope? [1]. If not, then perhaps a full book (well, a full book about his three projects in Algeria, so one third of a book) from a prestigious publisher [2], as reviewed by the selective Wallpaper* [3]? Not the best nomination, this... Fram ( talk) 17:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not just the above French chapter and English book (for a Brazilian architect working in Algeria), but also e.g. a complete Italian book [4]? Countless sources, just for the architecture. Probably some sources for its actual function as a university as well. Fram ( talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If all people can find are references about the building and architect instead of the university itself then create an article for the building. That doesn't mean the university is inherently notable just because one building on the campus or the guy who built it is. Hell, there could literally be a short mention of the building in the Oscar Niemeyer article. It's massively stupid to have a two sentence article about a university that's just on a building and nothing about the actual university though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of me saying that I did a
WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely
WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game.
Fram (
talk)
09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise
WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g.
The Independent or
Designweek. Oh, and
The Architects journal as well...
Fram (
talk)
09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --
Adamant1 (
talk)
10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what?
Fram (
talk)
10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g.
here or
here for more info. Oh,
this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation.
Fram (
talk)
11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected
this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source
[5] as "extremely
WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it.
Fram (
talk)
13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem.
Fram (
talk)
17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- You really like to move the bar don't you? If I had of known this is how you would respond to me suggesting an alternative to deletion I probably would have kept the suggestion to myself. I defiantly didn't think that you would flip out over it like you have. Lesson learned. The weird thing about it is that I agreed with you about the 15 page article and that we could probably turn it into a few paragraphs. I also agreed with a couple of points you made, like that the auditorium isn't the only part of the university he built. Plus merging it to another article wasn't in my original nomination. But sure dude, I don't want to know anything that contradicts the initial impression that started the AfD. Whatever. Have fun boxing ghosts. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem.
Fram (
talk)
17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected
this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source
[5] as "extremely
WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it.
Fram (
talk)
13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g.
here or
here for more info. Oh,
this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation.
Fram (
talk)
11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what?
Fram (
talk)
10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --
Adamant1 (
talk)
10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g.
The Independent or
Designweek. Oh, and
The Architects journal as well...
Fram (
talk)
09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise
WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game.
Fram (
talk)
09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of me saying that I did a
WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely
WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. It's a university, not a diploma mill. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:54, 27 January 2022 (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.
- 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. Tone 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Constantine 1 University ( | 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)
The only reference in the article is to another Wiki type website about the places architecture and I couldn't find anything else about it when I did a WP:BEFORE. Also the article about it in Arabic isn't any better. So I doubt this passes the notability guidelines. Maybe someone can find references I missed when I looked though. The rather ambiguous name really doesn't help things. Adamant1 ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. There are some architects who are so notable that pretty much all their works are notable too. Oscar Niemeyer is one of those architects. In addition to the fact that we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A 15-page chapter about this should be sufficient, I hope? [1]. If not, then perhaps a full book (well, a full book about his three projects in Algeria, so one third of a book) from a prestigious publisher [2], as reviewed by the selective Wallpaper* [3]? Not the best nomination, this... Fram ( talk) 17:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not just the above French chapter and English book (for a Brazilian architect working in Algeria), but also e.g. a complete Italian book [4]? Countless sources, just for the architecture. Probably some sources for its actual function as a university as well. Fram ( talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If all people can find are references about the building and architect instead of the university itself then create an article for the building. That doesn't mean the university is inherently notable just because one building on the campus or the guy who built it is. Hell, there could literally be a short mention of the building in the Oscar Niemeyer article. It's massively stupid to have a two sentence article about a university that's just on a building and nothing about the actual university though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of me saying that I did a
WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely
WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game.
Fram (
talk)
09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise
WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g.
The Independent or
Designweek. Oh, and
The Architects journal as well...
Fram (
talk)
09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --
Adamant1 (
talk)
10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what?
Fram (
talk)
10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g.
here or
here for more info. Oh,
this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation.
Fram (
talk)
11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected
this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source
[5] as "extremely
WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it.
Fram (
talk)
13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem.
Fram (
talk)
17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- You really like to move the bar don't you? If I had of known this is how you would respond to me suggesting an alternative to deletion I probably would have kept the suggestion to myself. I defiantly didn't think that you would flip out over it like you have. Lesson learned. The weird thing about it is that I agreed with you about the 15 page article and that we could probably turn it into a few paragraphs. I also agreed with a couple of points you made, like that the auditorium isn't the only part of the university he built. Plus merging it to another article wasn't in my original nomination. But sure dude, I don't want to know anything that contradicts the initial impression that started the AfD. Whatever. Have fun boxing ghosts. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem.
Fram (
talk)
17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected
this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source
[5] as "extremely
WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it.
Fram (
talk)
13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g.
here or
here for more info. Oh,
this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation.
Fram (
talk)
11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what?
Fram (
talk)
10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --
Adamant1 (
talk)
10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- (multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g.
The Independent or
Designweek. Oh, and
The Architects journal as well...
Fram (
talk)
09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise
WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game.
Fram (
talk)
09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of me saying that I did a
WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely
WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. It's a university, not a diploma mill. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:54, 27 January 2022 (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.