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 delete.
ansh666 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article doesn't make any claim of special notability for this building, nor is any such notability indicated in the references provided. No interesting historical info is popping up for me on Google, just routine commercial info. It looks like a
WP:Run-of-the-mill commercial building and doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, tentatively.
Note that comparing this article to an already-deleted one doesn't work; I and other AFD participants cannot see the deleted article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with nom. Seems like a
WP:MILL building. Regarding that it is within the
Garment Center Historic District, that appears to be true but I believe the district includes several hundred structures. A "contributing property" would not be notable by itself without meeting GNG.
MB 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This literally just states that the building exists and sources the fact to the
self-published website of the real estate management company that owns it, neither stating nor sourcing anything that could be considered a notability claim at all. And it's not enough to just assert that it's probably a contributing building to the historical character of its neighbourhood — if you can't source any substantive content about the building, your assumptions about what must probably be true carry no ice.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:08, 26 September 2017 (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.
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 delete.
ansh666 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article doesn't make any claim of special notability for this building, nor is any such notability indicated in the references provided. No interesting historical info is popping up for me on Google, just routine commercial info. It looks like a
WP:Run-of-the-mill commercial building and doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, tentatively.
Note that comparing this article to an already-deleted one doesn't work; I and other AFD participants cannot see the deleted article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with nom. Seems like a
WP:MILL building. Regarding that it is within the
Garment Center Historic District, that appears to be true but I believe the district includes several hundred structures. A "contributing property" would not be notable by itself without meeting GNG.
MB 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This literally just states that the building exists and sources the fact to the
self-published website of the real estate management company that owns it, neither stating nor sourcing anything that could be considered a notability claim at all. And it's not enough to just assert that it's probably a contributing building to the historical character of its neighbourhood — if you can't source any substantive content about the building, your assumptions about what must probably be true carry no ice.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:08, 26 September 2017 (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.