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.
An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources.
Rusf10 (
talk)
16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Newport, Jersey City. While there does seem to be sufficient coverage form back in th elate 80s, early 90s to support a freestanding page, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the large development of which it was part.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage when a developer constructed it.
Reywas92Talk20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You cannot use
WP:NOTPAPER as justification to have an article about everything imaginable. You added a New York Times article while has exactly two sentences about the building. Your other sources do not even mention the building. So, There is exactly one source with two sentences.
WP:NBUILD requires " significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." Nothing has been improved.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The building was notable in the late 1980s and does not need sustained notability. Once notable always notable. There is much non-trivial secondary source coverage including a 1988
New York Times article that I just added. I will continue to ferret out sources. Lubbad85 (
☎)(
Edits)
19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't be fooled by this
WP:HEY. None of the new sources help the building pass
WP:GNG, and 7&6=thirteen is adding irrelevant block quotes to all of these articles to provide "context."
SportingFlyerT·C19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article, as well as lack of current consensus for "keep" or "redirect".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱08:42, 28 June 2019 (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.
An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources.
Rusf10 (
talk)
16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Newport, Jersey City. While there does seem to be sufficient coverage form back in th elate 80s, early 90s to support a freestanding page, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the large development of which it was part.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage when a developer constructed it.
Reywas92Talk20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You cannot use
WP:NOTPAPER as justification to have an article about everything imaginable. You added a New York Times article while has exactly two sentences about the building. Your other sources do not even mention the building. So, There is exactly one source with two sentences.
WP:NBUILD requires " significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." Nothing has been improved.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The building was notable in the late 1980s and does not need sustained notability. Once notable always notable. There is much non-trivial secondary source coverage including a 1988
New York Times article that I just added. I will continue to ferret out sources. Lubbad85 (
☎)(
Edits)
19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't be fooled by this
WP:HEY. None of the new sources help the building pass
WP:GNG, and 7&6=thirteen is adding irrelevant block quotes to all of these articles to provide "context."
SportingFlyerT·C19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article, as well as lack of current consensus for "keep" or "redirect".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱08:42, 28 June 2019 (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.