Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kips Bay Towers


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kips Bay Towers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable, er, building. No mention of notability, no reliable refs. I'd have CSD'd it if A7 had a "buildings" category :) Etrigan (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a condo, without even any claims of notability - the two refs given looks like they're just real estate promos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep after excellent work done by ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There are a lot of sources that I could come up with that verify existence but I'm not seeing a whole lot of verifying notability. The NY Times article is really throwing me off but due to the fact that it is in the real estate section, I'm seeing that as more of ad space than a legit article. Tavix | Talk  17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Keep because of the information and references that User:Urbanrenewal came up with. Nice job! Tavix | Talk  20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a massive residential complex and it is a notable architectural item from the 1960s brutalist era. There are thousands of people living here as many people as in small towns that are included.  A quick search of the NYTimes (Also) reveals references in more than 40 articles with a number of the articles featuring the development / architecture / history as well as recent events.  I would strongly support keeping it.  I will add some quick refs to prove my point |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 17:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the article now with changes incorporated. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rather tempted to withdraw the AFD based on the work you've done, but I still don't see any assertion of Notability. I'm definitely wavering... Etrigan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your comment. The article lacked context originally but I don't know how you could possible say it is not notable in the face of all of the third party discussion. It is a huge building that has been written about and referenced extensively built by I.M. Pei.  Just the fact that Pei built it probably means it is significant architecturally.  This is a pretty obvious keep now. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the "Significant Coverage" part of WP:NOTE hasn't yet been met I feel: specifically "...sources that address the subject directly in detail". All of the citations so far, except arguably the first, fail that test, and the first is only an opinion on the aesthetics of the building. Most of them are mere news pieces about things happening in the vicinity of the block. Where's the big reputable article all about the building itself? Etrigan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep - Prominent building, housing thousands of people, designed by one of the world's most famous architects, dozens of articles about it in the world's newspaper of record. Pieces on the "aesthetics of the building" are reputable articles about the building itself.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - very large housing projects (estates in British English) are usually but not always kept. This is a housing project in Manhattan that is frequently in the New York Times due to its location, scope/size, and population of four thousand or more people.  I think those facts make it notable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 21 June 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.