Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provost Square

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provost Square[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)

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 multiple reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A substantial development of this sort is comparable with a small town or large village. It naturally attracts coverage in the same way and this one seems to be no exception. Examples include Foundation Work Underway For Provost Square...; New York Times; Wall Street Journal; The 28-story tower overlooks the newly created Provost Square .... And, of course, there are sensible alternatives to deletion, such as merger with Powerhouse Arts District, Jersey City or the List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE does not mean we do not delete anything. WP:NBUILD requires significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. A paragraph in the New York Times or even a full article in some obscure publication does not meet that requirement.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article be expanded? If not merge to one of the places suggested. Dream Focus 04:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine local coverage that a developer is constructing it. Your stupid WP:PRESERVE does not mean everything on this entire site is immune from deletion. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand/Redirect & add List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand per above. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid vote, see WP:PERX, only this is even worse because you didn't even specify which person's vote you are agreeing with. Furthermore, unless you can actually provide some quality sources, stop with the WP:BEFORE garbage which really is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 I was endorsing the reasoning of Andrew D.. Calling out a violation of WP:Before is not a personal attack. See WP:NEXIST. That you disagree with my reading of those provisions is not a moral judgment on you. I will say what I want. Tone down your commentary on me. You are being unduly contentious. Once again, WP:Civil is being ignored by you.

You are wrong on your claim that "Not a valid vote." Who are you to make that call?

I will not call your edit "garbage" or other epithets. I don't think colorful expressions help the quality of the debate. Your comments stand on their own, and their nature and tone speaks for itself. Indeed, your citation to no personal attacks is tinged with irony.

I suppose you actually did WP:Before here. If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marbella Apartments I simply stated facts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider move to draft I do not have time to develop the article, but the article should be developed User:Lightburst 13:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:7&6=thirteen. And calls to wp:PERSONALATTACK can themselves be personal attacks, as pretty much appears to be the case here. And I disagree with User:filelakeshoe: it has been established well enough that sources exist; we do not have to immediately fix the article; wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. The coverage, thus far, is for obvious reasons principally about its construction with little about its operation. At present I am not seeing WP:GNG compliance. Just Chilling (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Andrew D and 7&6=13. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 6 July 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.