Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Park Lane


 * 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 Redirect to current hotel article for now. (non-admin closure)  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

1 Park Lane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a proposed Manhattan skyscraper. Article contains no references and I have found only a couple third-party mentions. I'm sure that if this construction goes forward, it will become notable but for now, I'm of the opinion that it's WP:TOOSOON. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge content/redirect link to Park Lane Hotel (Manhattan), which is what's currently at 36 Central Park South. They plan to tear down the Park Lane Hotel and build the new skyscraper by 2020. As of now the hotel is currently still open - I don't know if this bid here to save it has any chance now. Eventually 1 Park Lane can fork off to be its own article depending on developments.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG, without even doing any searches the article currently contains four reliable sources that offer significant coverage, and it's pretty common to have articles for planned skyscrapers that haven't been built yet. This is due to such a high-level of interest in skyscrapers that they normally do see significant coverage long before they are built. Disagree with merging to Park Lane Hotel (Manhattan), as they are separate buildings that will have separate histories, even if they effect each other. Whether or not this new skyscraper is ultimately built doesn't matter as it constitutes WP:CRYSTAL, and based off of what we currently know this passes the general notability guidelines as a planned skyscraper. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize I am biased, but in addition to War wizard90's comments, the building is being designed by Rafael Viñoly, an architect responsible for buildings such as 432 Park Avenue, Jongno Tower, and 20 Fenchurch Street.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How does the article currently contain four WP:RS? The only really RS is the NYT article from last year, and it's about saving the Park Lane Hotel. The only source for the new building details is Yimby, which seems like blog. The Curbed and the Real Deal sites/blogs both cite the Yimby article as a source; so that means you have one source.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the Curbed and Real Deal sites using YIMBY as a source. However, YIMBY is not a blog, but a news site and can be considered a reliable source. New York Times is a reliable source, and both of those sites are offering significant coverage. However, a search does find other sources, such as this one from Wall Street Journal. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a closer look at those articles. The NYT article is completely about saving the Park Lane Hotel and who thinks what about the effort to save it. The only mention of anything to do with what will replace it is this sentence: "Those following the effort are fairly certain that it has a particular purpose: halting plans to replace the hotel with yet another cloud-buster overlooking Central Park." That's it. The WSJ is from two years ago and says the an agreement was made to sell the building but it hadn't been decided what was going to happen, if they were going to tear down the current building or just remodel it and make it bigger. And it says two important things: 1) if they tear it down, the zoning laws mean they only build something 2/3 of its current size (so not the fourth-tallest skyscraper in Manhattan) and 2) They can't close the hotel unless they work out a deal with the hotel union to keep the jobs by building a new hotel, or do some kind of other negotiation. The name "1 Park Lane" could be just a proposal, since it's not anywhere except YIMBY, which based on its own article, doesn't seem too strong of a source. But fortunately AfDs stay open seven days, so if this is really happening, there will undoubtedly be better sources showing up soon.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if some better sourcing doesn't come along before the end of this AfD I will reconsider my position. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Changing my !vote per this newly revealed information. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for staying on top of this, . Instead of delete, would you object to a simple redirect? That way the article as it is now can be restored if/when more information is confirmed. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to a redirect. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done! —Мандичка YO 😜 04:43, 2 June 2015 (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.