Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punahou Circle apartments


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Punahou Circle apartments

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Obviously there has been some coverage of this apartment building in the media, and WP:BUILDING apparently recently failed as a guideline so we don't have specific rules for these kind of structures, but as of right now I think this does not meet WP:N. I would say the coverage of these apartments to date is "trivial" not "significant," and essentially all of it relates to speculation about making it a landmark since Barack Obama once lived there (a Google News search for all dates on "Punahou Circle apartments" without "Obama" reveals no hits at all).

The sources linked in the article (I did not bother cleaning this up since I'm putting it up for AfD) suggest that it will be some time before any decision is made about this building getting landmark status. If it does eventually, and even more so if it becomes something more akin to the Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site, then we should likely have an article on it. For now all we have is speculation and the knowledge that an American president once lived here, but I don't think that's sufficient for an article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am pretty sure that it is debatable that the fact that the President of the United States of America lived there as a child would make this structure notable.  It's novel, but to me, there is also a similar issue I saw with Salt lake eagle gate apartments, which was deleted a bit ago, despite a citation that several presidents of the LDS Church lived there during their tenure as president, owing to proximity to the temple there in SLC.  In any event, I'll change my mind if the actual structure that another president lived in as a child is similarly endowed with landmark or pending-landmark status.  (The Nixon Library doesn't count - the library is notable unto itself and has the birth house relocated.) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with that AfD, but from how you describe it, it only had one citation mentioning former LDS presidents and didn't seem to have been the very in-depth subject of multiple independent sources as this property has. Besides, as much as LDS presidents are important to LDS members, the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, is by far a different level. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's debateable as to how far that can go, Oakshade, but I figure this - the LDS presidents are, generally, notable enough to all have their own articles here on WP. I'm with BTP on this one - if it becomes a landmark, then most certainly a keeper - but first it has to get there.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it. =D  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of multiple reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Many more sources not listed in the article have been written about it, internationally no less. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as the location is already notable regardless if an agency or two designates it "historic".  --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to specific sources which provide "very in-depth" coverage? And by "very in-depth" I mean going far beyond simply pointing out that the apartment building is being considered (maybe) for landmark status. There are a bunch of articles that mention that, but having an article solely on that basis would be a classic violation of WP:NOTNEWS. And I think WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here, because if the building was ever made a landmark then we'd have to think about it very differently. Right now we don't know whether that will happen or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a different definition of "very in-depth", but multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis easily satisfies my definition of "very in-depth". Perhaps you missed the point of my argument, even without official "landmark" status, the building satisfies WP:NOTABILITY.  WP:NOTNEWS applies to "persons and events".  The childhood home of the most powerful person in the world is not a person or event.  Besides, even in December and without any discussion this might be an official "landmark", it was already a tourist attraction.  We're well beyond crystal ball speculation as to the notability of this location.--Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you see "multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis" about this apartment building? Seriously, can you provide links to articles that have that? And again I mean about this apartment building itself - not a story that just mentions it and the connection with Obama. I mean articles that talk about its history, architecture, residents, etc. etc. Everything I've seen is a variation on "Obama lived here once, it might become a landmark." I can't think of anything else we would put in the article at that point and that ain't enough. And the policy I was referring to, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," is not just about persons or events, obviously. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you need the articles copied and pasted for you? Click on them and you will read very in-depth muilti-paragraphed articles about this building.  This alone is in-depth reporting, interviewing and analysis about this building.  More here.  You seem to be under the strange impression that because they focus on the building's Obama history, that somehow means the sources only provide trivial coverage as you mentioned in the nom comments.  "Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "one sentence mention."  The coverage of this building is extremely beyond the scope of "one sentence."  --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need anything copied and pasted, obviously, and let's please try to avoid getting snippy. You still are not providing multiple links to articles as I've asked. This is a very standard request in AfDs, not something to be annoyed by.


 * In the above comment you provided exactly one link to an article (one which I had already seen incidentally, or something similar - I really have read about 10 of the sources that come up on Google News and they all say basically the same thing). Besides mentioning Obama and the landmark issue, here is the sum total of what it says about this building: "There are 96 units in the Punahou Circle apartments Obama lived in with his grandparents on the tenth floor in a two bedroom unit that's about 1000 square feet. They initially were in a one bedroom unit, but then shortly moved into the larger apartment." I believe the entire article (which is a transcription of a 90 second local news story) is exactly 15 sentences long which is not even remotely close to in-depth reporting - it's basically a press release which is kind of how the news report reads.


 * If we used this source (or similar ones) to build our article on this apartment complex, we would be able to say that it has 96 units and that Obama lived there on the 10th floor. Do you honestly believe that's worthy of a Wikipedia article? I'm asking in all seriousness because I truthfully don't see what you have in mind here in terms of turning this into an encyclopedia entry. Again, if you could link to other secondary sources that actually cover this building itself in some detail&mdash;or at least explain what you think will go in this article beyond "Obama lived in this building"&mdash;that would be helpful. I'm not trying to pester for perstering's sake, I just don't see any in-depth sources as you keep suggesting.


 * Finally, and not incidentally, you are reading WP:N incorrectly I'm afraid. Obviously you're looking at the first footnote there, which notes that a "one sentence mention" is "plainly trivial"&mdash;i.e. if something only receives a one-sentence mention then it's trivial in the context of that particular source. This is not remotely to say that 2, 8, or even 15 sentences automatically denotes "significant" coverage. In point of fact something could be covered in hundreds of news articles and still be "trivial" by Wikipedia standards. You have not at all demonstrated that this apartment complex has received non-trivial coverage, but I could still be convinced if you provide some actual evidence for that. Again I've looked and not found any. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming the coverage is about attributes of the building, but it's about the Obama connection. That's why it's notable.  A place can be notable for any reason, whether it be the architecture, history or anything else.  Your interpretation of WP:NOTABILITY to somehow mean that coverage of "hundreds of articles" on a topic could still be "trivial" is unique to say the least.  For your request for actual links to "multi-paragraphed" articles on this topic, I actually did provide them above, but here are some individually. [ http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94294 "What about the hospital of his 'birth'? Hawaii moves to make Obama childhood home national landmark"] (25 paragraphs) "Obama's childhood home may become landmark" (13 paragraphs) "Obama's Childhood Home Could Become Historic Landmark" (roughly 8 paragraphs (15 actually, but they're rather short), plus a 1:52 video) There are more articles but I'm too tired to cut and paste them.  But anyway, the claim that these are one sentence "Obama lived in this building" sources is opposite of reality.--Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, my interpretation of WP:N, as you say, "to somehow mean that coverage of 'hundreds of articles' on a topic could still be 'trivial'" is not at all unique, that's the policy. When Barack Obama spends 12 hours in Turkey, there are hundreds (thousands) of articles about it. We do not create an article called "Obama's 12 hour trip to Turkey." When Kanye West writes a blog post about a South Park spoof of him there might be hundreds of articles about it. But we don't write an article called "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park." This is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In my view you have not remotely demonstrated that the level of reportage about the Punahou Circle apartments rises above that of any other flash-in-the-pan story unworthy of encyclopedic coverage. The sources you provide are all variations on the exact same theme, and showing that 200 papers/local TV stations have said the exact same thing is just not evidence of significant coverage.


 * Having said that, I thank you for tidying and sourcing the article. In my view that's just about exactly as long of an article as we can have on this, and it's based entirely on sources that are essentially identical and which ascribe no significance to this place other than the fact that Obama lived there and that it might (or might not) get historical status some day (incidentally one of the other articles mentions multiple other places that Obama lived in Hawaii - this one just happens to be receiving coverage at the moment). For you that's enough for a Wikipedia article, but I see a permanent stub (unless this actually becomes a historical landmark - that would be a different situation) that does not pass WP:N. Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree, so hopefully some other editors can weigh in here and swing the debate one way or the other. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park" with this location is comparing apples to oranges and seems very much a red herring argument. This location isn't an "event."  I think the childhood home of the President of the United States is notable and in this case, it has received in-depth coverage by many sources.    You seem to be attempting to redefine WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial."  While it used to define it at a "passing mention or directory listing" (obviously the coverage this building has received is extremely beyond the scope of "passing mention or directory listing"), it now only provides one example of what is considered "trivial" and that is a "one sentence mention" in a biography of a different topic.   The coverage is far beyond a "one sentence mention" and is actually the primary subject of multiple independent sources.  If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", you need to make your case in its talk page, not push an agenda on a specific AfD.  If you think that simply being the childhood home of Obama and nothing else is "trivial", that's fine but it is not in any manner WP:NOTABILITY's definition. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF a bit will you? I'm not "pushing an agenda," or trying to change WP:N via an AfD (???), and claiming that is quite beyond the pale. I've don't believe I've ever edited that policy page and have nothing to do with how it is worded. We are reading/understanding it quite differently, obviously. I continue to think your view of what entails "significant coverage" is inaccurate, for reasons I have already expressed and will not repeat. I certainly have not accused you of pushing an agenda or trying to redefine our core policies: I just strongly disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine which is often par for the course in these kind of discussions. I think we can leave it there without impugning one another's motives. Finally the distinction you keep making between "locations" and "events" is odd in my view. Yes, this is a place, not an event or person, but it is beholden to the same rules when it comes to notability. Like events, places can be covered in a one-off manner (as Kanye's blog post has been, hence the analogy) that does not warrant wikipedia coverage and that's what I'm arguing happened here. Okay NOW I'm done discussing this (I lied earlier apparently). Apologies to the closing admin for all this verbiage, though I do think the issues under discussion here are semi-important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep What do we need for significant coverage besides articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other? If this reaches NRHP status (that will be a few months from now, if it gets it), it will thereby be made notable, but as is I see it being a little past the minimum simply for its coverage.  In case you're wondering, it's altogether likely that this will receive NRHP status: although I can't speak for the homes of many recent presidents, I know that the Bill Clinton Birthplace was listed little more than a year after his inauguration, and it's already a National Historic Site.  In short: don't worry about it being a permastub.  Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it gets NRHP status then it's a different story as I've said. It doesn't have that yet and obviously we are not a crystal ball, so the fact that it's "altogether likely" that it will receive a special status is neither here nor there at the moment. Incidentally it's one of many homes Obama lived in in Hawaii, and it's not his birth home. If it ends up as a landmark it's easy to recreate the article. But would you agree that if it does not end up with NRHP status then we should not have an article on it? If you take that view then I think the only thing to do is delete it for now since we just don't know what will happen (maybe eventually his birth home will get landmark status instead and this building will not, who knows). Finally, and I'm really finding it troublesome that a couple of experienced users are missing the boat on this which is why I'm weighing in again and then I swear I'll shut up, "articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other" does not a subject for a Wikipedia article make. Right now this is a one-off news story (Obama lived here, it might get landmark status) being covered exactly the same way by a number of outlets akin to the way in which hundreds of papers will print an AP wire story. We cannot, right now, turn that into an encyclopedia article. If later we can, great, but let's wait until then - this article simply jumps the gun, and our policies do not encourage us to keep it around under the assumption that the subject will later take on more significance and receive more in-depth coverage. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject has been covered by reliable media. It is logical to assume that this place's notability will continue to growth due to the public's fascination with presidential homes. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am not going to get involved in this debate except to note that apparently (or at least according to my understanding of the facts, anyway) the article was created with a sock puppet account and the original account has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Not exactly sure where this info fits in the grand scheme of things..... --NBahn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (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.