Deletion of New South Hall

Comment: Lack of ''in depth'' coverage in reliable and independent sources. Seems pretty un of the mill to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: the McFadden book, and the ''Washingtonian'' Magazine are reputable, independent secondary sources sufficient to show the article meets .  I agree that the professionalism of student newspapers varies campus by campus.  But we don't have to assess the Hoya or the Georgetown Voice here, because we have other independent secondary sources sufficient to establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: yes, a lot of references have been supplied, but I don't think they establish notability, which should mean that this somehow stands out among thousands of other University halls of residence. See xistence ≠ Notability and the |List of bad article ideas #4. Yes, I know they are "only essays", but citing them saves writing it all out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E||WP:BAI)