Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teachers Village, Newark

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers Village, Newark[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)

First of all, this is not a neighborhood. It is a real estate development. As per WP:NBUILD, buildings have a high bar to clear to establish notability. Being a relatively new development, it has no historical significance and I don't see it being covered anywhere except local sources. Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Djflem (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Teachers Village is an unincorporated community, or neghborhood, arising from a previously run-down part of the district south of Market Street. The unique community of schools and teachers and is a significant, notable, historic contribution to the much-touted renaissance of Downtown Newark, a city that has struggled with under-investment & negative perception for years. Its core is a group of iconic buildings designed by world-renowned architect Richard Meier, a Newark native. The initial redevelopment has triggered other projects in the surrounding neighborhood. All of this is supported local, state-wide, regional, and national sources.-Djflem (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a neighborhood, its a development. Also does not matter who the architect is, per WP:NGEO "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events."--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the the misconstrued assertions this community is the heart of the neighborhood and the buildings in it by the Pritzker-winning American architect Richard Meier are notable in the real world as well as Wikipeia as seen in List of works by Richard Meier and Category:Richard Meier buildings. For further enlightenment see Mies van der Rohe Residential District and Radburn, New Jersey, just two of the myriad of examples in which historic, social, economic, or architectural factors are significant, as is the case here, and as is supported by the sources/references. Djflem (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. How on earth does this not meet wp:GNG. What is the deletion nominator thinking? Is this willful wasting of Wikipedia editors' time? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Theater Square. --Doncram (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:How about providing an actual reason to keep, rather than making a WP:PERSONALATTACK?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, the reason to keep is it obviously meets wp:GNG. You should understand GNG by now. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand it by now too. GNG only creates a presumption of notability, it says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article" Here we have only local sources (that doesn't help) and we can look towards the applicable guideline WP:NBUILD which it does not appear to meet since it does not have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clearly supported by local, state-wide, regional, and national sources, which clearly speak to the historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Djflem (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Concur with Djflem on this well-referenced article, as well as with Doncram in often having to question the motives of some apparently deletionist nominators. - JGabbard (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the article's significant coverage in many reliable independent sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor nomination. scope_creep^Talk 03:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a poorly defined line between a development and a neighborhood. According to my standards, even a housing project can be notable, which it appears to be so in this case. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 March 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.