This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Please, all you who think links like this one] belong in Wikipedia, or who think they are spam or otherwise do not belong, kindly talk it over in Wikiproject New York's talk page rather than simply revert each other. Me, I'm in favor of these links but even more in favor of us editors getting along. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the two of these that were dropped into articles I follow, at the very least the photos seem like a valuable addition, it's unfortunate that the way they were added looked like an old-fashioned spamfest. I'll consider re-adding the two I've looked at. New users and enthusiasm don't mix well - I've seen this happen before with a good art site that ended up getting blacklisted. --CliffC (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a reputable link, as the author does not list citations or sources. With regard to this specific article, the In-arch.net site states that the building was built in 1976, but another site—a realty site—states that the building was constructed in 1975. Again, this is why I have inserted the notability tag, as the building is not notable enough to be able to find reliable information about it on the Internet. However, I am continuing to improve the page while it is still live.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a separate article for this building?[edit]
I have inserted a Notability template, as I have tried to find information about the building in online sources and it is not one of the notable constructions on Park Avenue. It does not even have historic significance, as it was built in 1975. For example, in this document by Deanna Kory, she does not even mention the building as significant: [1]. I don't think it is significant on an architectural level as well, but if anyone had any further information, please contribute it to the article. It just doesn't seem to be reasonable just because the building is on Park Avenue. However, I am continuing to improve the page while it is still live.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since developing the article further, I have realized the building's significance and have therefore removed the Notability template.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
