Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/930 Fifth Avenue


 * 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 Notability asserted and supported - a picture would be nice. Mike Cline (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

930 Fifth Avenue

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable New York City apartment building whose sole claim to fame is one famous tenant. Does not meet WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Appears to fail notability. Sources have been added which improved the article, but so far no one has been able to determine if the coverage is significant in the books shown online only in snippet form. Havin g a well known architect and well known residents does not absolutely establish notability, but says more for a building than one which has neither. Edison (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No-brainer. No notability asserted whatsoever. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:03, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Being designed by an iconic architect is an assertion of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - People please do a little research before voting so quickly. This was almost a snow-delete.  Just being designed by Emery Roth alone makes it a notable address (just added "new" fact to article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) With the improvements I'm going to confidently add keep per WP:GNG.  The sheer quantity of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources does satisfy GNG; "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."--Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, being designed by a notable person doesn't make a building notable. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:29, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a subjective opinion. I think in this case it makes it incredibly notable.  Even the heading of WP:N stipulates we use common sense.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from not satisfying any of WP:GNG, if basically the only fact to convey is its designer, that information is adequately presented in the designer's article. A separate article for every one of that designer's buildings isn't necessary just to convey the fact that he designed them. It makes no practical sense. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:47, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article appears to be well-sourced, I don't see any harm in letting it stick around.--Milowent (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The building is neither a national nor a municipal landmark. There are no notable architectural achievements connected to its design or construction. The architect was extremely prolific in New York City and this building has never been identified as one of his masterworks. And famous tenants do not bring about notablility, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I see two routine notes from the local paper from the years it was under construction in 1939 and 1940, and sevral notes about famous residents, but the notability of the residents is not necessarily inherited by the building. Do architecture books have something significant to say about the building as an example of a new style or new construction methods? Nice job of searching for and adding refs, but I do not quite see that they satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mansions in the clouds: the skyscraper palazzi of Emery Roth appears to have a more in-depth description of the building, but the preview is limited so unless I have the book, I can't say for sure. This book also has some content on it, but it's hidden again due to the http link only being a preview. --Oakshade (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In both books, it appears that references to this particular are fleeting, at best. Furthermore, the article is now being embellished with frilly language that is giving the building an artificial sense of importance. Again, it does not hold landmark status nor is it recognized for any breakthrough in design. Warrah (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frilly language? Feel free to propose edits, of course, but information I just added to the article includes a mention in a 1978 retrospective of Roth's work in the Times written by an architectural critic.  I also determined that the building is within the Upper East Side Historic District.  I am not try to establish that the building is the Parthenon, just that, in the aggregate, the building has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Milowent (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Warrah, I was answering Edison's question with no bias whatsoever. We know you as AfD nominator wants this article deleted, but please let editors answer others questions without throwing in bias responses.--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Upper East Side Historic District is a neighborhood that covers a large stretch of Manhattan, including several parking lots, Starbucks outlets and pizza parlors. The coverage that is being presented is not significant. In most cases, it is merely mentioned in passing. Warrah (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, its ok if we don't agree, as we are unlikely to convince each other it seems. For the record, I would submit that the district is actually a very small percentage of Manhattan., and  Starbucks and pizza parlors do not need to seek approval to change their facade as the actual buildings which create the historic character of the district must do.  Admittedly, this individual building is not individually designated as far as I know.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article has been significantly improved since its nomination.  While ripe for nomination, I think it is now worth keeping.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The improvements to the article, plus the fact that it was designed by Emery Roth and had several notable residents, makes this article notable enough to be kept. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already voted to delete, prior to the recent expansion; my feeling on the article is unchanged though since then. Famous residents and a famous architect don't make the building notable (WP:INHERIT, as has been mentioned above), and nearly every building in NYC has probably had passing mention in some publication. I'm not seeing this building significantly stand out among them. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:46, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or maybe a merge to Roth's article. None of the sources constitute significant coverage, as required by WP:N, and the building does not inherit the notability of its architect, nor that of its residents.  Powers T 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N doesn't require a large amount of significant coverage to come from a single source. In this case, there is a significant amount of coverage that comes from a combination of many sources.--Oakshade (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the amount that needs to be significant, it's the depth, which is sorely lacking. Powers T 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. The significant depth has been demonstrated to come from a combination of sources.--Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's run down what we have: Famous residents, a famous architect, what used to be at the lot, and a couple of quotes about the decor; this all I'm seeing so far, and it doesn't constitute in-depth coverage, according to my experience with Wikipedia's standards. Again, I think the same probably exists for the majority of buildings in NYC, and it would be a mistake, and useless, to have separate articles on them all. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:23, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * The slippery slope argument doesn't work with me. I don't think there is the same coverage on a majority of buildings in NYC.  And remember that Wikipedia is not paper.  If hundreds of buildings in NYC pass WP:N, then we can have hundreds of articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, "Article appears to be well-sourced, I don't see any harm in letting it stick around." Sourced and verified articles are odd candidates for deletion (at least once they are improved.)  In my experience with wikipedia's standards, we have about 1 million articles worse off than this one.  Unfortunately, all a number the article creations of the creator of this article now appear to be up for deletion all at once. Articles for deletion/300 East 57th Street.--Milowent (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All? No, he's created many more articles than that. I just nominated a few that I feel have similar issues. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:55, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--Milowent (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. Even in aggregate, none of the sources constitute significant coverage, as far as I can tell.  Powers T 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * KeepManhattan 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) 14:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Private clubs don't inherit the notability of their members, either. They must be written about in third-party sources first, just like buildings.  And I don't see significant coverage of this building.  Powers T 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- there is no getting around the fact that the building does not have landmark status, nor is it celebrated for its architecture or construction. Nor is it special for being in New York City. A handful of famous tenants does not confer notability on this apartment house, and the majority of the coverage sourced to the article only mentions the building in the briefest manner. There is a valiant effort to keep the article, but ultimately the arguments for keeping it do not add up.Warrah (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient references, for those who   go primarily by that. In terms of a more general meaning of notability, most of the major luxury apartment building in cities such as NYC will prove to be notable. A major work by a major architect is notable; a building where many famous people have lived is notable; and building for which there are multiple literary mentions is notable. This is all 3. A building so important that the various stages of its construction are matter for newspaper articles is certainly notable . That all landmarked buildings are notable doesn't mean that no other buildings are.     DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A building where many famous people have lived is not necessarily notable. Powers T 13:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Powers, is it possible that in the case of buildings, the number of notable people living there does confer notability?  The reason I suggest this is that newspapers and books are published every day with articles about famous people living in this or that building.  when A-rod moved into 15 Central Park West, it was a front page story with a long discussion about the building and how many other famous people live there.  Tour groups circle New York and Hollywood  pointing out who lived where.  I really think that the amount of press devoted to describing buildings where famous people have lived is preceisly the kind of coverage in secondary sources that establishes notability.AMuseo (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is those stories that confer notability, not the mere fact of celebrities living there. We can't assume notability just because famous people are living in a particular building, not unless such sources are so common that it would be literally surprising to find that a particular building doesn't have such sources.  Powers T 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the references and you will see a highly subjective consideration of WP:RS. Kate Kelly’s New York Observer real estate column says, “No. 930 is not considered one of the preferred Upper East Side co-ops” – hardly an endorsement of notability – and the article is only about the sale of Woody Allen’s co-op apartment, not the building itself. The Real Deal article is about the architect and not the building. The New York Times article on Harold Uris mentions the building in passing in only one sentence. The older New York Times articles are not accessible to non-subscribers and none of the books are easily available here to confirm that there is any in-depth coverage of this very specific location; judging by the titles alone, it is clear that the building is not the primary focus of any of this coverage. I am sorry, but this fails WP:GNG and it violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For that New York Observer article, negative coverage is still coverage. The Real Deal article point is a red herring as that article supports that Emery Roth was an iconic architect (Warrah, you kept on trying to delete the word "iconic"  so that's why that source was provided).  It's impossible for an article to "violate" WP:NOTINHERITED as WP:AADD is a self-contradicting essay which can be useful to help those with a point of view, but it's not a policy nor even a guideline.  --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I felt that the word "iconic" was too subjective, which is why I took it out; I later put in "prolific," but that got removed. And the Observer article isn't even about the building; it is only about the sale of Woody Allen's co-op apartment. Warrah (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep no question the article had some issues when nominated and judging notability for a building can be hard but the fact is that construction materials are not notable. Bldgs gain their notability by virtue of people involved with their construction and design as well as people who live(d) there. Would The Dakota be notable if not for its residents? This building, while not the most notable in the world - which is not a requirement for notability - has certainly obtained some coverage sufficient enough to pass GNG in my mind StarM 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Dakota is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and is a U.S. National Landmark. This building is not cited on either listing. Furthermore, The Dakota's placement on both lists has nothing to do with its celebrity tenants -- it actually has a historic significance as "one of the earliest large-scale apartment houses" . And, again, the coverage cited in the article either gives only fleeting reference to the building or doesn't even mention the building. Warrah (talk) 11:35, 5 March 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.