Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 East 57th Street

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 snow keep (non-admin closure, by nominator). Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

300 East 57th Street[edit]

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

Also nominating:

These New York City buildings all seem to assert notability through having been designed by famous architects and/or having had celebrity residents. A couple have passing mention in a publication, but not what I would consider in-depth coverage, as is required by WP:N. These were all created by the same user, User:AMuseo. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:35, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Presumably you found these due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/930 Fifth Avenue. Mass nominations are almost always a bad idea, unless you can demonstrate that each individual entry fails WP:BEFORE.--Milowent (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE isn't something to be passed or failed, just steps to take before nominating something. I'm already well-versed in deletion policy, procedure, and the pertinent general notability criteria. I even helped write some it. I feel these buildings don't meet the inclusion criteria. The group nom is justified, I feel, because all the articles contain similar assertions of notability that I feel are too weak to justify inclusion. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:49, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  - 880 Fifth Avenue, first hit I find is [1].--Milowent (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a few second search on 810 Fifth Avenue brought up very significant coverage from the book Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: an illustrated History (multi-paged in that case) and New York Magazine. [2][3]. This is in addition to the New York Times piece on its penthouse that was already in the article. [4] As the nom claimed they helped write WP:BEFORE, it's curious that they didn't follow it.--Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without getting into how thoroughly I followed WP:BEFORE: I claimed to help write WP:N, not WP:BEFORE. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:30, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep All - First of all, too many articles for a nomination. Always a nightmare to sort through the pros-and-cons of each with with a ton of different "keep"-"delete" combinations. Secondly, these AfDs seem ill advised. Just a quick look at 15 Central Park West alone shows very in-depth coverage from Vanity Fair and Fortune. [5][6] And these links are in the article. I'd usually advise the nom to follow WP:BEFORE if they miss easily-found coverage, but in this case, the in-depth coverage was already presented to the nom.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - found plenty of sources for each building, see: [7], [8], [9], [10]. So im going for a WP:N keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All - Can't help but feel these articles are getting this treatment because they're numbered and not named. They're all noteworthy and clearly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All - 15 Central Park West is a $2 billion project, according to the Vanity Fair article [11]. Jeepers creepers what kind of building do you have to build to be notable to a wikipedian? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except 45 Christopher Street, because of adequate coverage of the buildings themselves (as opposed to the buildings' occupants) in reliable sources. (Despite that, these articles are still painfully thin on details, and need improvement.) For 45 Christopher Street, citations aren't strongly indicative of notability for the building, except maybe with regard to 1934 explosion. (Sort of in the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT, it would seem that the more important topic would be the explosion, not the building.) Therefore, for that article, delete.
Additionally, if these buildings have names (other than their addresses), it might be worthwhile to rename the articles (unless demonstrably better-known by address). TheFeds 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 45 Christopher is a unique building, among the most desirable in the Village because it is One of the few great apartment houses in the Village. studio apartments at 45 Christopher go for over $1 million, the lobby is a work of art, and the views of the Village from the terraces are to die for. You know some of the people who live in it by name. The article needs work, not deletion.AMuseo.
Speedy Keep All. Manhattan apartment buildings, even the famous ones, tend to be known by their numbers, not by the names, which they all have but which are often forgotten, even by the residents. I believe that the names of the notable residents are as central to these articles as the names of the residents are to articles about small towns. People like Roakcfeller and Nixon lived at 810 Fifth because it was a prestige building, and it was a prestige building because people like Rockefeller and Nixon lived there. It is also a fact that these buildings function like private clubs. You don't simply purchase an apartment in any of these great buildings. The members elect a board of directors. When you find an apartment to buy, you apply to the Board of Directors for approval. The application process entails multiple letters of reference and a personal interview, in addition to proving that you have liquid assets more or less equal to the value of the apartment not including the money you are paying to purchase the apartment. Like a private club, the Board can veto you without giving a reason. All of these buildings, like private clubs, decide what kind of people they wish to associate with. Some admit celebrities, many do not, they dislike running gauntlets of press on their way in or out. In a very real sense, these buildings could be evaluated for notability as a series of private clubs notable for their membership, which includes many of the world's wealthiest people. Some are notable for their architecture, others are not, except in the sense that streets park Avenue, Central park West, West End Avenue, and Fifth Avenue are admired by students of architecture precisely they feature block after block of handsome, limestone buildings, of more or less the same height and all with similar street walls creating an wonderful impact on the eye. Almost every one of these buildings is a notable piece of architecture that would be among the most admired buildings in the city if it were plunked down in the middle of Cleveland, Houston or Miami. The great buildings of New York are not less notable because New York has so many of them. AMuseo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't every co-op function like that? Regardless, perhaps this info could be included in one merged article about this type of building. Even if a lot of money was spent on a building, perhaps even with a magazine article detailing how luxurious it is, I don't see that as an establishment of notability. There is one building article you created that I haven't included in this nomination (despite it being numbered, which has nothing to do with this nomination), 455 Central Park West, which is a landmark and worthy of an article. I don't see what there is to say about the others, though, aside from detailing how luxurious they are and which celebrities do or did live there; which doesn't seem like encyclopedic information to me. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:52, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equazsion, please take a look at American National Bank Building (Pensacola, Florida). It is by the same architect who designed 810 Fifth Avenue. As I said, many of New York's luxury apartment houses are notable buildings that would be landmarked and have wikipedia pages if they were located in, say, Pensacola. The fact that New York has so many of them does not make them non-notable.AMuseoAMuseo (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly there's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; There may be other articles based on bad notability assertions, but that's neither here nor there. Secondly, that building has apparently been in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places since 1978. Again, these buildings aren't landmarks. You can say they "would have been landmarked" had they existed elsewhere, but that's a dubious claim, and not something objective on which to base notability. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:28, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I have now made some imporvements to 810 Fifth Avenue of the kind that can easily be made to each of these articles. I will try to do so on a time-available basis. However, is the fact that an article is not yet as good as it could be sufficient reason for deleting it? I think not.AMuseo (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage - not passing mentions in newspapers because of an association with someone famous, nor a nod to their price or luxuriousnes. As the nom pointed out wax is not an argument to keep, and that seems to be the general argument that is being used to keeping these. Addionne (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Comment below[reply]

Passing mentions? You define these in-depth articles - [12][13][14] [15][16], only a few of sources satisfying WP:GNG with these articles as "passing mentions"? And specifically the Vanity Fair article [17], how is a two page 2600+ word article about 15 Central Park West just a "passing mention" of 15 Central Park West? --Oakshade (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Oakshade. I was beginning to feel like someone who fell through a rabbit hole into an alternative universe. I have improved the 810 Fifth Avenue and 15 Central Park West articles somewhat, and will continue to work on the group. I ask newcomers to at least look at these two, as examples of what the other will be. And I ask editors not familiar with Manhattan to think about regarding each of these buildings as a small private village or club inhabited by a select group of some of the world's richest and most powerful people.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to close this AfD and do it over with individual AfDs for each article? Warrah (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a majority of editors are advocating "keep all" for notability reasons, not just for a batch AfD, that would be against consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, Weak Keep. Some articles are weaker than others, hence my mild enthusiasm. Warrah (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all On the basis of references, and the general notability of these major buildings. And 930 Fifth Avenue , nominated for some reason separately, is notable as well. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
improvements and sourcing I have now improved all of the articles to the point where there really is no question of notability on any of them or on 930 Fifth Avenue. I do think that editors have a responsibility to google around a little before starting deletion nominations. And I urge the nominator to withdraw the nominations. We all make mistakes. Even experienced editors when, as in this case, they happen upon what were admittedly stubs in need of work at the time of the nomination, and in an area (New York city and architecture) perhaps unfamiliar to the nominator. AMuseo (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity with New York architecture really has nothing to do with whether or not the nominator should or should not have nominated them - he seemingly did so based on the fact that they were poorly sourced and did not assert notability. That is perfectly valid, in my opinion, and not necessarily a reason to be condescending. That said, I think you have done a great job of sourcing information for these articles, and I withdraw my previous Delete argument. Addionne (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I dind't mean to sound condescending (although the tone comes naturally to those of us who live in Manhattan) what I meant was that no New Yorker could possibly perceive these buildings as non-notable.AMuseo (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we snow-keep the whole group, including 930 Fifth Avenue.AMuseo (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Customarily snow keeps are performed by administrators, non-admins who weren't involved in the debate or the AfD nominator withdrawing the Afd. I wouldn't advocate speedy keeping 930 Fifth Avenue as that's a separate AfD and it doesn't fit any of the criteria of a speedy keep.--Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keeps can actually be performed by anyone, and often are done by non-admins. As for splitting up the AfD, that can probably be done so long as there aren't significant votes to delete. Basing this on the fact that nominations can usually be withdrawn under those circumstances, so if someone wanted to declare this a snow keep (as does seem to be the case), and then make new individual delete nominations, that would seem to be in line with policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, consensus so far is "keep all" for notability reasons, not just because it's a batch AfD. If it's a snow keep after several days or a standard keep after 7 days, opening yet again more AfDs of the same topics would not only be against consensus, but it would look like a bad faith effort to immediately attempt again to delete articles consensus had just decided to keep.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in that event would be "don't delete all of them". The "keep" seems to largely be based on a couple of the individual building having shown to have extensive write-ups, so no one could say they should all be deleted anymore. I don't think we can know how this would've turned out with individual nominations. Anyhow I'm closing this as snow-keep. I won't re-nominate anything myself, but others are free to. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

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.