Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/408 Greenwich 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   keep. Reliable sources, such as the AIA Guide and New York Times attest to the building's notability. The redirect will be deleted as an unlikely, recently-created redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

408 Greenwich Street

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

There's no indication this building is notable... it's only described as an address in Manhattan and I can't find any other suggestion it's notable. (this nom also includes the redirect to it 408 Greenwhich Street) Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) *Delete per above. Part of a spate of promotional edits, without rationale for notability. JNW (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC) ("Case Study: Samuel A. Ramirez Building, New York, NY") ("On Greenwich Street, Second Try No Charm for Proposed Buildingt")--User:jfr3x —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete Wow, a 9-story building in New York City .... The Morris Adjmi firm has made self-laudatory contributions of this type before, and I can't see any purpose for this one besides promotion.  Unless it's famous in the world of architecture, it's not notable enough for an article here.  Mandsford 14:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Now inclined to weak keep. JNW (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not delete This building is notable in the neighborhood for its design and the character it adds to the area. It has been written about in the NY Times and in the AIA Guide to New York. It was inspired by Aldo Rossi's design ideas and is an interesting example of postmodernism in NYC. It does sound a little advertisey (although not intended), but perhaps you could help me clean this up. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfr3x (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears all of your edits are promotional in tone, and suggest a WP:COI account. Please remember to sign your talk page posts. JNW (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I find one substantial article from 2004 about this building in The New York Times ("Residential Real Estate; 9-Story Project Approved in TriBeCa Warehouse District") as well as one passing mention in 2009 of its significance to the "North Tribeca" neighborhood. As stated by the editor above, the building is also written up in AIA Guide to New York City. This does suggest the building may be at least marginally notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Local papers reporting approved building permits is not a substantial article, and I find your rationale highly worrisome. Your criteria for inclusion is amazingly explosive; I cannot imagine the future success of the project if users had to monitor and watchlist every address in Manhattan that had a building permit involved. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's news coverage plus coverage in a significant architectural guidebook. The 2004 article is not just a routine report about a permit: it describes the plans for the (then-unbuilt) building in some detail ("a project that is intended to weave together the old and new, both in the curved arch of its windows and the unusual mix of uses planned for the building" and more) as well as the controversy over allowing a new building in this historic zone and its anticipated effect on the neighborhood.   As I said in my original comment, I still find the case "weak", so far. I'd like to know, for example, if there are write-ups in significant architectural magazines.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding additional reference links plus revising content to sound less like an add and focusing on the historical significance of this building in the TieBeCa Warehouse Historic District district.
 * Delete: unsourced, and proposed new sources are tangential at best (the NYT "substantial article" above appears to be about a new building proposed on the site of a garage on that section). Does not meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The AIA does give this building a single paragraph, but that still does not come close to significant coverage (either individually or collectively). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: All the relevant policies require multiple reliable sources describing the subject in "significant detail." Passing mentions do not count.  Multiple passing mentions are a "0+0=0" deal.  There's no scope for passing the GNG for short of multiple substantive sources.   Ravenswing  16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for "multiple" reliable sources to demonstrate notability. This topic has more than one anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - As Arxiloxos mentioned, the New York Times article along with a write-up in an architectural guidebook does show notability. It does need to lose the advert language though. But that's a case for fixing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  The AIA guide  is essentially a specialized encyclopedia, and any building listed specifically in it is notable (not by fiat, in this case, or by special definition, but as passing the GNG--just the same as any person in the ODNB is notable.) Wikipedia includes what is in other encyclopedias, because that passes the basic idea of notability.     DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG: the AIA guide is over a thousand pages long, with typically several listings per page. To claim that all of these thousands of buildings, in a single city (even one as large and prominent as NY), are inherently notable is ludicrous overreach. This, and similar arguments from yourself and like-minded editors, amount to little more than a de facto attempt to abolish notability criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of topics are notable then we can have thousands of articles.  And in a city as historic and large as New York, it's not only understandable, but expected that so many buildings are notable.  Please avoid the bad faith claims.  There's nothing here or anywhere else to indicate that DGG is attempting to abolish notability criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO right back at you. "If thousands of topics are notable..." has been simply asserted, not demonstrated for the buildings listed in the AIA. The directory itself does not provide the depth of coverage needed for a substantive article, and it is likely that many will lack substantial coverage elsewhere -- as is the case with this building. Thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands?) of such guidebooks exist for this, and other such topics, throughout the world. If we lowered notability criteria to include every building, street, park, bridge, etc, etc listed in such, then we would be liable to be flooded by millions poorly-sourced unexpandable stubs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For a building to be considered inherently notable, I would generally expect some sort of official historic preservation status, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the AIA source was indiscriminate, you'd have a point, but the fact is the American Institute of Architects, one of the most respected architectural organizations in the world, has singled out only a tiny percentage of New York City buildings to profile which includes this one. It's not up to us to decide what is considered worthy of standing out, but learned professionals in a given field.  I will go with professionals opinions, not specific Wikipedia editors ones. --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If the AIA publication is a directory, I would not think it establishes notability. Different circumstance, but I'm reminded of this discussion, where the distinction was clarified for me . JNW (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have changed from delete to neutral (above), on the understanding that the AIA source is not a mere directory. JNW (talk) 15:41, 22 November 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.