Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ely Walker Lofts

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Walker Lofts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see evidence for notability. The association with the Bush family is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows why this building is worth having an encyclopedia article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBUILD. There probably aren't many warehouses used to store shoes, Catholic school uniforms, and gun holsters but this isn't enough to lend it "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance"----Pontificalibus 11:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. It is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and there is substantial sourcing available about it, some already included in the article. It is one of 55 contributing buildings in the Washington Avenue Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri), whose article does not comment about this one building; it is fine and good for it to be covered in a split-out separate article. It is apparently one of the largest and most substantial buildings in the historic district. I added NHRP infobox to the article just now.

I am not opposed to it being moved to its historic name Ely and Walker Dry Goods Company Building (currently a redirect to the AFD topic article), if some feel the "Lofts" term is too recent and commercial, but that is not for this AFD.

Or perhaps better, it could be converted to be a larger article about the "Ely and Walker Company or "Ely and Walker Dry Goods Company" itself, with the building covered in a section. Such an article also could link to other historic buildings of the company. Currently Ely & Walker is merely a redirect (created in 2010) to Oxford Industries article which provides no coverage of Ely and Walker, while I presume the firm was eventually acquired by Oxford. It seems this was a major firm and brand, and the building is a major artifact of its history. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by the way, a wonderful looking building, architecturally, a major work of Eames & Young architects. Take a look at it in Google streetview: perhaps this link will work to show it to you. The terra cotta surrounded entranceway is great, imho. --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have reliable sources in the article and WP:V that the building is one of the buildings in the Washington Avenue Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri). Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that it should be kept just because it is an NRHP contributing property, however there are enough sources and information about this CP for an article. Seems to have been quite significant in its time in St. Louis. Would prefer the historic name also. MB 05:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just being within a historic distict is not enough to make a building notable. I live in a dedicated historic historic district; the house I live in is one of the about 900 that make up the district.That doesn't make it or all the neighboring house notable, even the ones whose architecture is discussed in a paragraph or two of the designation report. What's notable is being a specifically designated landmark of itw own. Many, but not a districts have a few prominent buildings that are individually designated--a few, like some of those in Manhattan or other historic downtowns, have many. But there's no evidence that this is one. And if it was "quite significant in its time in St. Louis", there would be multiple good sources.Quite a lot has been written about St. Louis. -- DGG

I don't think I said, and did not mean to imply, that all NRHP contributing buildings qualify for a separate article. I agree with MB and DGG on this. Note that NRHP historic district nominations often fail to provide much coverage about, or even to mention, some or many of the buildings included in the districts' areas. However, this is a major building, one of the most significant in a large historic district, and there exists substantial coverage about it within the NRHP nomination document, and there exists other coverage, including about whatever Bush connection (which I have not evaluated, have no opinion about). I added material about the building's architecture to the AFD'd article. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant Contributing property with arch., cultural, hist. merit.Djflem (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NotButtigieg (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2020 (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.