Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinner Building (Seattle)


 * 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. I think the more complicated discussion over possible mergers or moving of content between the two articles is an editing decision, not a deletion decision, that can occur among interested parties on the article talk pages. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Skinner Building (Seattle)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article duplicates coverage of the building in 5th Avenue Theatre and should redirect there. There is no reason for a separate stub that adds nothing that article. This is commonly done with other historic buildings. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Washington. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most newspaper results only discuss the building in concert with the theater, and there's not much that can be said that can't be integrated into the theater article.  Sounder Bruce  05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been sufficiently expanded with content that is not solely about the theater, thus demonstrating notability.  Sounder Bruce  06:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to 5th Avenue Theatre, with info that is not duplicated, leaving categories on redirect page, so as to keep name of building in them for navigational purposes. Djflem (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to @Djflem, the Skinner Building (Seattle) article has expanded significantly since the initial nomination, would you re-evaluate? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per HEY and recasting of this article and focus of both. Generally like incorporation of NRHP sites/districts into one larger article to give context, but here two make sense. Djflem (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (disclaimer: article creator). The Skinner Building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The theatre is part of the building but they are not synonymous. Details about the theatre belong at 5th Avenue Theatre; all other details about the building should live here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge I see no reason why there should be separate articles for the building and the theater in the building. 5th_Avenue_Theatre and 5th_Avenue_Theatre cover information about the building's various aspects and splitting this to another page does not serve readers. The NRHP nomination describes the exterior, interior, and theater space of the "Skinner Building (Fifth Avenue Theatre)" (presenting them synonomously) so it should all be described in one place here. Nothing about the building is notable if the theater it was built to hold is excluded. Reywas92Talk 08:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume all sources cover the building and theatre as one because they don't. I've expanded the article with plenty of content which has nothing to do with the theatre. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep anything listed on the NRHP is notable. Should be easy to pull the nomination documents and write up a full article about this place. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b, of course the building is notable. The issue is why have a separate article. It is already covered in 5th Avenue Theatre and the normal procedure is to propose a WP:SPLIT if an article gets too big. This is just an unnecessary WP:CFORK. MB 18:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Split would be great. Having a single entry covering the NRHP site, the theatre within, and its production history seems like a lot, IMO. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A merge sounds fine, so long as the information is clearly laid out in the target article, confirming that the two listings are distinct entities. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Two listings"? The place is listed on the National Register as "Skinner Building" with alternate name "Fifth Avenue Theatre".  It is just one listing on the National Register, and the significance noted in the nomination is about both interior and exterior, though more about the interior. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak merge Keep If there is no significant historical description of other occupants of the building, merging seems appropriate. The current theater article has no discussion of the building's exterior architecture, or any of its other tenants.  Should such materials be available sufficient to meaningfully expand this stub, a merge might seem out of place.  Magic ♪piano 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Magicpiano Right, the 5th Avenue Theatre article has minimal information about the building as a whole. I'm trying to expand the building article as I have time. I'm confident there's more to add about the exterior design, tenants, reception, etc. I invite you to revisit later to see if your 'weak merge' can be changed to a simple 'comment' or even 'keep' :) Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe such sufficient information has been located, would you reevaluate? ɱ  (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks much improved.  Magic ♪piano 22:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge (if there is actually any substantially new/different info in the new article, otherwise "Redirect"). No apparent reason to split; the article about the theatre (and its building) has existed since 2006 and is nicely developed as a complete discussion.  The NRHP nomination was in 1979(?) and describes the building's importance primarily as the theater (the interior).  Sure, the building's exterior is also described, but if there are any fragments of info about the exterior not already covered in the previously existing article, they can certainly be accommodated there.  Note: being listed on the National Register does not equate to "wikipedia must have a separate article", and the NRHP listing (and reasons for it being listed) was already covered in the previously existing article.  Duplicating does not help readers. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If ? This doesn't need to be a hypothetical. You can actually review the content of the current article and sources. You say the 5th Avenue Theatre entry "is nicely developed as a complete discussion" but clearly that's not true. I've found lots of details about the building which have nothing to do with the theatre, and there's more to add about changes to the building, tenants, the chimes, etc. Are you suggesting all of these details should be folded into the 5th Avenue Theatre entry, which is already decently long despite being mostly focused on the theatre? Asking for clarification. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To others, FYI, the 5th Avenue Theatre article has been edited back and forth by Another Believer and myself. I edited a bit to this version which IMHO properly leads off "The 5th Avenue Theatre, also known as the Skinner Building, is....  I believed I was restoring its narration to be about whole thing, stating that the NRHP listing is for "Skinner Building / 5th Avenue Theatre" which it is, and that it was designed, inside and out, by architect Robert Reamer.   Another Believer edited it to this version basically towards dividing coverage between two articles because that is what they prefer, including saying that Robert Reamer designed the interior theater (and omitting that he designed the exterior and all the rest of the building).  I am leaving it now in Another Believer's preferred presentation, but I do think one article easily accommodates presentation of the unified full thing, designed by one architect, notable and NRHP-listed for being one unified thing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My issue is the 5th Avenue Theatre is not "also known as" the Skinner Building (I understand how the NRHP nomination has listed these together, but many sources consider the theatre a part of the building). The theatre article is very focused on the theatre (rightly so) and says almost nothing about the rest of the building. I've drafted an article about the rest of the building, and there's more to add. You've made your position clear and I respect your opinion, but I'm asking, do you think the content I've drafted could be folded into the existing theatre article in a way that's not confusing to readers and/or too long to navigate? I'm asking so I have a better understanding of how a merge can move forward, not because I'm trying to change your mind here. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Strong notability of architect, architecture, prominent streetfront, and building history outside of the theater portion. The theater is just one tenant of NRHP-listed structure. Enough sourcing and content exists to make this article viable. ɱ  (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The building is notable and this article looks nothing like the article for the 5th Avenue Theatre and the content definitely would not belong there: the radio station (esp. KOMO), the Chimes, I. Magnin, Brooks Brothers, the major earthquake retrofit, etc. Interested in seeing more discussion of the role of the Skinner Building as one of the Fifth Avenue "anchors" as the downtown shopping destination until the the locus shifted to Nordstrom/Westlake/Pacific Place (i.e., not just the building but the context). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, the building seems much more than a theater, and deleting it (I think the term "merge", in the vast majority of cases, is another, nicer, and more polite name for "delete") would do nothing more than lose Wikipedia an adequate encyclopedic page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2022 (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.