Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grid District


 * 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 22:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Grid District

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable place. Not a historic district nor even a connected collection of buildings. This name is purely a marketing strategy for a developer. There are no historic reference to this "district" before this year. See Talk:Bancroft Hotel for a related discussion. Found5dollar (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (Changed !vote; see discussion down below) Keep The four reliable sources within the article are independent of the subject and discuss both the topic and the grid extensively. If the material within the article seems promotional (it does actually), we'll have to clear that up to an npov state. But the sources are enough for the subject to have its own article, whether or not the name has been created by a private developer. Lourdes  03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are from news articles relating to the subject, where the buildings are mentioned many times as "the grid" also edited the page to remove promotional content - and looked for unbiased articles but only found news. Article on projects in worcester - http://worcestermag.com/2016/08/11/wait-pow-wow-artists-announced/448612601:182:CC03:CD00:8550:2692:2910:B735 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete GHits show that this is just the name of a multi-building apartment complex. One unwary reference in a Worchester weekly does not notability make. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I had a look and I wasn't able to find any sources to show that this is an official historic "district". For example, from here, "When completed, the Grid District will be a mixed-use project with 510 residential units, 60,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and more than 300 parking spaces." This looks nothing more than a private housing project and per WP:GEOFEAT this wouldn't qualify for notability. More importantly, the coverage is restricted to a couple of local publications which are only announcing that this project is planned (but nothing concrete has been built yet). We have routinely deleted such "upcoming" projects per WP:FAILN, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTPROMO (as the article only serves to promote the project). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, , some inputs requested from you on the following points: WP:GEOFEAT mentions, and I quote, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Multiple third party references are mentioned within the article that establish the same. Secondly, the Grid District is not a future planned project. If you read the sources, you'll realize it is a rebranding of past existing constructions which are being renovated. Lastly, I accept that the majority of sources belong to Worcester, Massachusetts. If all sources belonging to Worcester should be considered local and should not be considered, then I'm open to changing my !vote. Will appreciate your responses. Lourdes  06:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All the citations are from Worchester newspapers and represent the sort of routine coverage expected of any large residential project, particularly those in the Worchester Business Journal. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Mangoe. So my question remains. Should we ignore Worcester newspapers (in the sense that is Worcester a small or insignificant territory from where coverage should not matter)? As an example, if something takes place in Paris, and only Paris newspapers cover the same, should we ignore that (or perhaps my analogy is wrong)? Also, you describe the coverage as one expected of a "large business project". All the sources cover the subject spanning the whole news report. If this full page news coverage reports are what is expected of large scale projects, isn't such coverage exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting per GEOFEAT, large residential projects (and not small insignificant ones)? Your inputs will help me get clue on this issue. Lourdes  10:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a rule one would expect this sort of local US newspaper to report on any sort of redevelopment project. If there were outside coverage of it as a remarkable project I would take that as an indication of notability, but this sort of local coverage is routine. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I get what you're mentioning. Lourdes  02:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Five news articles from three different reliable third-party sources over a six-month period that all discuss the topic by name, and in some detail, establishes notability. That's more than most WP articles have. The article does not claim any historic significance so that seems to be a red herring (two of the buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but that is largely irrelevant). That it is a commercial development has nothing to do with notability; we have hundreds of articles on shopping malls. If there is a promotional tone, that calls for improvement, not deletion. Ideally, this could be incorporated into a larger article about the significant urban renewal proposal in Worcester, but I see no reason to delete accurate, factual, well-sourced info from WP. Station1 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (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.