Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towers of America


 * 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 redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Irrespective of the (de)merits of the deletion nomination, it seems like the consensus leans towards there not being enough sourcing to justify a separate article around the topic - for some sources it's not clear from the discussion whether they'd satisfy WP:SIGCOV - and the keep arguments are mostly concerned with procedural issues or are not based on guideline/policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Towers of America

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing more than an apartment building. Fails to meet WP:NBUILD notability. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is actually five separate buildings. The nomination is part of a series and it appears that due diligence, such as reading the article, is not being done.  Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:SK, "so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, so retract your WP:PERSONALATTACK]! The article is so short it only takes about 15 second to read and does not use any reliable sources. I do need see how the fact that the apartment complex has five buildings adds to notability. Your speedy keep vote is nothing more than disruptive and you should strike it immediately.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination starts "Nothing more than an apartment building" but the article and its sources plainly indicate that it is several apartment buildings and therefore the topic is more than an apartment building. When the article was prodded, the nominator seemed to take no time between this and his previous prod and so it seems apparent that the WP:BEFORE process has not been followed.  I reckon that it takes at least 10 minutes to investigate a topic of this sort properly, not 15 seconds. Andrew D. (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One apartment building, a five building apartment complex, what the difference? THe fact that it is not notable and has no significant coverage in reliable sources is all that matters. And you really don't want to talk about timing, do you? You DEPROD multiple articles within the same minute. Maybe you don't read anything because you have a "keep no matter what" philosophy. --Rusf10 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the above blatantly disruptive comment is one of the clearest indicators of disruptive behaviour I've seen in a long while. The nomination referring this apartment complex consisting of five towers as "an apartment building" is not an indication the nominator had not read the article. WP:SPEEDYKEEP actually has very strict criteria -- the criterion you are invoking here actually says that a nomination must be full of errors to the point that one gets the impression the nominator has no idea what the article is about; using colourful, abbreviated language does not indicate that. The only other possible criterion you could be invoking (and I've seen you invoke it before) is that the nomination is pure vandalism.
 * I actually gave the page a read just now since I kinda suspected it might apply to Articles for deletion/Keyence -- it doesn't, but by the standards you've been applying to this and other AFDs on what seems like a weekly basis, it definitely would. If I see you close any more AFDs as "speedy keep", given that you clearly either have a very poor understanding of that guideline or are deliberately misrepresenting it, I will revert you.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I guess is WP:CANVASSING now?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no comment about that. It is the unofficial policy of the Article Rescue Squad that this template should be used whenever an AfD is listed by them. I add the notice when the listing editor has not done so, and I indicate the editor's name to make it clear that I had not listed the AfD, as would otherwise be assumed. I am in favor of always using the notice template, in order to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Of course, it is always possible that an editor could simply forget. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I added a New York Times article that had substantial coverage of these buildings to the article, but that was the only good reference I could find. Unless more can be found, I'm leaning delete. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 22:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. I can't find anything that's not the NYT article, either - another source or two and this can be kept. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Not every generic apartment building or complex is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage that a developer constructed it. Reywas92Talk 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Large complex. Part of the rebuilding and rebranding of Jersey City. WP:Not paper.  Article hus been improved. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And just how does the complex's size establish its notability? WP:NBUILD requires "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" and despite your best efforts you have found only one source. WP:NOTPAPER is not justification for keeping this, see WP:EVERYTHING--Rusf10 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It exists. Whether there is a Wikipedia article, it is still a landmark and part of the larger complex tapestry of urban development in Jersey City.  Which is itself a rags to riches story that is useful to our readers' understanding.  12:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment unfortunately the WP:HEY version of this article had nothing to do with the source topic (and appears to now be in a bizarre edit war,) so my redirect vote stands. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Removal of the following relevant material, which provides context, is just your attempt to dictate theoutcome huere.
 * It is being eclipsed by a larger building boom and architectural revival that is taking place in Jersey City, which has now moved toward tall towers.


 * Although built in 1999 – 2002 it is seen as part of a larger long term revival in Jersey City. In 2015, Robert Cotter and Jeff Wenger, one of whom is the urban planning director for Jersey City wrote:"“Since 1980, 18 million square feet of office space have been developed on the Jersey City waterfront, generating the highest price per square foot office deals in New Jersey history and marking the success of the original ‘Wall Street West’ concept. Currently over 6,000 housing units are under construction with another 20,000 units approved by the planning Board. Much of this development is accommodated with high rise construction with approximately 28 buildings over 300 feet tall and 6 buildings over 500 feet with several more under construction. China Overseas has approvals for a new tower of 889 feet. Within a few years, Jersey City will overtake Newark as New Jersey’s most populous city….”"


 * I think it belongs, and I thiink that doing this while the AFD is pending is an attempt to create a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The source does not even mention the buildings. You clearly added it so there would appear to be more sources than actually exist. There is one, only one reliable source for the article, the same source that exists when I nominated the article for deletion. You purposely added irrelevant information to the article so you could claim a there was WP:HEYMANN and the article should now be kept. Saying that you improved the article is extremely disingenuous and an attempt to WP:GAME.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yesd, the source does not explicitly mention it, but implicitly involve it. It pertains to the area in which it sits.  And your accusation that it was put in to misrepresent anything is scurrilous and both uncivil and a violation of WP:AGF.  You have shown your cards.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The source "eplicitly (sic) mention it, but implicitly involve it" That's called WP:SYNTH. Do not even attempt to lecture me on civility and AGF when you constantly accuse me of not doing WP:BEFORE searches and canvass other editors to deletion discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You both need to stop. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I suppose you actually did WP:Before here. If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene?  And Articles for deletion/Marbella Apartments  I simply stated a facts.  Given the present state of the article, indeed why have you not withdrawn the nomination?  But that's a matter for your conscience; ride that into the ground if you will. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rusf10 And your unfounded accusation of canvassing ["and canvass other editors to deletion discussions"] needs to be withdrawn. If you have proof go to WP:ANI.  Oh, I forgot, you went there already. So Otherwise, shut up.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. I agree with the Nom, nothing notable here, save the height. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. The WP:GNG suggests that subjects should have multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage on said subject, and this article only has the one New York Times article.  Sources that do not cover the subject at all, even if they are tangentially related to it, do not qualify as significant coverage, so none of the additional sources that have been brought up in this AFD help establish any notability to this complex.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't speedy keep Yeah, it's been almost seven days and Andrew still hasn't convinced anyone to close this prematurely, but it still seems worth mentioning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.