Talk:New Era Building (New York City)

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Page views show all of these articles are lightly view and all are in the same range. If you remove any benefit from one of these being at the main name space the assertion that one is the primary target becomes weaker. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– New Era Building of New York City does not meet wp:PRIMARYUSAGE guidelines for holding the main topic name, in lieu of the disambiguation page that was previously at the main topic name. Also, please restore earlier edit history that was part of the long-standing New Era Building dab page (deleted), to the current dab page. --do ncr am 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC) do ncr am 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Administrator actions, erroneous-in-my-view, removed the dab page from "New Era Building" and allowed the current New York City page to be created there by another user. (Previous discussion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#New Era Building (archived), at User talk:Doncram#New Era Building, and User talk:Doncram#Your move of New Era Building.) If an administrator at wp:AN would have made a judgment on wp:primaryusage, editor Station1 indicated he would have gone along with that, and I probably would have also, either way. But no administrator would. Previous mistakes or not aside, this RM discussion should simply focus upon whether or not the New York City one meets wp:PRIMARYUSAGE criteria. If there is no consensus, then I think the default should be to restore the dab page to the main topic. --do ncr am 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no evidence has been presented that the New York building isn't the primary topic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No evidence has been presented that the New York Building is the primary topic. Burden falls on the person that suggests that there is a primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 03:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on evidence. Evidence is that the Pennsylvania one and the Wisconsion one are historic buildings that are actually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, while the New York City one is not. Also, in the wp:AN discussion Cbl62 pointed out numerous other New Era Buildings, in Chicago, Johannesburg, and San Francisco, and perhaps more, as well as a New Era company which might be most prevalent in searches. The standard for wp:PRIMARYUSAGE is that one article must be more commonly sought than all others. Here, i think that no one of us, and few wikipedia readers, has heard of any one of these obscure buildings. Common sense is that no one of these is dominant. --do ncr am 02:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A google web or book search on "New Era Building" had many more hits on this building compared to the other two, including numerous independently published books that specifically cover the topic, five of which I cited in the article. Only 3 articles currently exist on WP, so per WP:TWODABS I see no benefit in replacing this article with a dab page - the other two articles will not be more accessible than they currently are thru the hatnote, and this one will be less accessible. If additional articles are ever written about other buildings, things can change, but until then they're not really relevant. (And, just for the record, I believe this building is within a National Historic Landmark district, but that's not really relevant either.) Station1 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.