Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashua Street Residences


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nashua Street Residences

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I came across this while checking non-free images. I had considerable difficulty even to find out whether construction of this nondescript structure had, or had not, actually begun, so as to find out whether the non-free image of it was replaceable. On reflection, however, the very lack of information on this structure suggests that it isn't something we should have an article on: no mentions on Google books, a passing reference on scholar and a smattering of news reports in the Boston papers which say very little indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait: I just put up the no sources tag. Also, I think this article has some potentail. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just another obscure stalled building project, of which Boston has plenty. That being said, we don't keep articles because of "potential."  We keep them because they fulfill the requirements of WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS.  This one doesn't.    RGTraynor  06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That viewpoint is not consensus. Potential, not just current state. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've linked to an essay. Would you prefer to cite a policy or guideline to support your assertion?   RGTraynor  03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No actually, because even the existence of an essay in the 'Essays on building Wikipedia' Template, shows that there is a difference of opinion from that you have stated, which happens to be seconded by myself in this case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't conflate "not everyone in the world agrees" with "there's no consensus."  RGTraynor  07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please read WP:ATD. "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator,..." (which is policy, as you asked for) I am not necessarily saying this article has potential, just that the stated viewpoint is not consensus. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only that it's consensus that such an article does not belong in mainspace. Which is, oddly enough, what nominating an article for deletion in the first place maintains.   RGTraynor  03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  kur  ykh   07:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Nashua Street Residences currently is being reproposed according to one of the article's sources and will not be completed (If it even will be) until 2014. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, saying "keep because it has potential" is akin to crystalballery. No evidence of notability, but it can always be recreated if it gains notability.  Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 6 February 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.