Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vantage Pointe Condominium


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vantage Pointe Condominium

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Notability. My search provided no major third party sources that weren't advertisements. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of secondary sources, the prime criteria for WP:GNG. The sources indicate it is San Diego's largest condominium building, very significant for a major city with a high retirement population.  Ironically, I found these articles from the nom's own "My search" link.--Oakshade (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Because of your limited search that didn't show significant coverage negates all the significant coverage found elsewhere? --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he eliminated press releases and the like to find third party sources, but I'm not sure... Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Try searching by "Vantage Pointe" "San Diego". Abductive  (reasoning) 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete News sources pointed out are routine placements in the local real estate section. The real estate section of the large paper in any large city will have these semi-promotional articles every weekend. Miami33139 (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles say things like Vantage Pointe is a huge fiasco and is returning people's escrow payments, and becoming a rental building. This is far from routine. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles are not at all "routine placements" and not even in real estate sections. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of condo projects across the United States are converting to apartments. This is a normal business decision in a real estate downturn. During the bubble, hundreds of apartment complexes kicked out all their tenants and converted to condos. These are routine business decisions. They might make the news, but they are not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every condominium receives in-depth coverage from multiple sources as this one has. And the coverage of this particular project is on the extremely large scale of both the building and the real estate debacle.  That's why the coverage, not just "it's there."--Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire. A condo? No, no. Watergate, sure. Vantage Pointe is just another set of buildings, however. Given current financial circumstances, we'd need another encyclopedia to cover all the residence-turned-rental dwellings; this is in no way encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Condos can pass WP:GNG as this one has just like any other topic. If you'd like to change WP:GNG so it excludes condos, you can propose it on its talk page instead of pushing a new agenda on an individual AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence my mention of Watergate. This condo is manifestly not Watergate, and is not notable. I push no "new agenda" I merely seek to reduce cruft and clutter which fails Notability so resoundingly. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Condos that are not Watergate can pass WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. This one passes WP:NOTABILTIY and WP:GNG.  You've offered absolutely no valid argument of how it doesn't pass those guidelines.  And sorry but "It's not Watergate" is not a valid argument. --Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument is that its not notable. My Watergate example was to indicate that I do consider some condos notable. What is unclear to you? Subject fails WP:N. Sorry to have confused you with examples and commentary. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you think it fails WP:N is totally unclear to everyone here. You have so far completely failed to explain how this article "Fails WP:N".  Just by typing in boldface "Fails WP:N" doesn't make it true.  Since you've provided no supporting argument to that claim, it appears you have no valid argument to delete this article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd that you're the only one badgering me about it, then. Not notable is self explanatory; its not... notable. You're asking me to prove a negative. Your claim seems to be that its big, and it has a few mentions in the papers. Its going to rent from condo, which isn't even much of a news story, let alone a notable event. It garnered a completely non notable "ward" from a local paper, sort of a local raspberry. None of this makes the place notable. If it has no grounds for notability, it is, by default, not notable. In short, you have failed to offer any rationale for notability which I find plausible. I am now done. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying, but when you add in the fact that it is in the top ten tallest buildings in San Diego, I think we're okay keeping it. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, that's a valid argument for notability. IMO, its just not quite there. I mean, San Deigo, not the world. It might be part of a package for notability, but all of the rationales are just below the threshold for me, sorry. Looks like a possible keep anyway, clearly there are dissenting views. Thanks for taking the time to post a rationale for my consideration; it does make me waver a tad, but ultimately is not persuasive enough to me, personally. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel it is a borderline case too. The problem with skyscrapers is that if we set the notability bar much higher, then each skyscraper would have to have a special claim of notability. For example, I just created an article on the Plaza on DeWitt (because it was in the news for a fire). I was really stumped for anything encyclopedic about it until I found out was the first building on earth to use the tubular contruction method later used for the World Trade Center. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; there is a balance between too inclusive and too exclusive; this is clearly one of the borderline cases but it does appear to be leaning towards a keep at this juncture. I just cannot in good conscience state that I find the arguments for notability persuasive. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, Vantage Pointe is a huge unsold disaster, with much coverage of its failure. For its appallingly bad architecture, it "won" this year's Grand Onion from the San Diego Architectural Foundation. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - controversial, big buildings are notable; the several reliable sources prove its notability. Bearian (talk)
 * P.S. While of local interest mostly, I think it would pass this essay. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Claims of importance, reliable coverage in non-trivial sources? That's my general standard, and also the community's. If it can be covered accurately in an encyclopedic style (e.g. there are sources) then it can be a useful encyclopedia article to someone, even if it's not at all an important topic to me personally. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The community standard includes significant not just reliable sourcing, and the claims of importance must be matched to verification. I don't see that here. Miami33139 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the mere "claim" of notability only precludes speedy deletion - in order to be a "keep" on Afd you must hold the view that the claim is valid. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor mentioned "Claims of importance" and "reliable coverage in non-trivial sources", which this topic has. Pretending that the editor only felt the "claim" of notability is the sole reason they kept the article and then arguing against it is pure straw man. --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are addressing, and frankly I don't care. Claiming someone here is "pretending" is a personal attack, which I advise you strike. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'm to assume that you feel the editor did demonstrate more than the "mere 'claim'" of notabiltiy and supported their argument by addressing WP:NOTABILITY, the "reliable coverage in non-trivial sources."? That you completely omitted the latter in your rebuttal seemed to indicate you felt the former was their only argument, despite both arguments being made very clear. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You would be entirely wrong in that assumption. I saw no problem with Sancho Mandoval's other reason for keep; however his rationale for assertion of notability is contrary to the standards applied in Afd. I therefore commented only on the section which required comment, as did Miami33139. You are not "catching" anyone in "pretending" there is no other rationale; you are displaying a rather shocking amount of WP:ABF. Neither my post nor Miami's was a "rebuttal " at all, but rather kindly meant advice about AFd. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No ABF. You only attacked the editor's "mere 'claim' of notability" and went on to say "you must hold the view that the claim is valid" when in fact that's what the editor did in the 2nd part of their argument, which you ignored.  That's a fact, not an assumption. Sorry you're shocked.--Oakshade (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I ignored the second part of their argument because there was no flaw with it - no issue, no problem, and hence no reason to comment on it. Is that finally clear to you, or are you still labouring under the misapprehension that there is something nefarious about the fact that Miami and I saw an logic flaw in one argument, about which we commented, and no flaw in the second argument, about which we remained silent? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 02:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok y'all, can you keep it somewhat calm and civil please? I see this becoming more and more heated. Not good. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I'm not sure why my comment provoked such a semantic debate. I just feel like we do expect articles to somehow claim importance if we're to keep them at AFD. There has to be something that separates it from the rest. You could find plenty of non-trivial coverage of basically every regular season sports game ever played at a high level, tens of thousands of such games a year, yet we'd delete a WP article on them unless it was actually an important game for some reason or another. Maybe this isn't currently codified into policy but it seems like it's the standard people apply at AFD. That's what I meant. But rather than turn this AFD into more of a trainwreck maybe if you really want to debate this with me, use my talk page? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply a misunderstanding by Oakshade - the point, rather lost now, is that there is a distinction between "claim of notability" and "meets notability criteria" - the first, which you cite, is a speedy criteria, the other is an Afd criteria and has pages and pages of guidelines. This being an Afd, it is not enough to have a "claim of notability" - that claim must be supported by the cites given. If you have any questions please do message me on my talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep--I found some coverage (see this) that convcinces me of notability. For starters, it's HUGE. Also, it has won an award, according to this article: the "Grand Onion, for failing to establish a human-scale element at street level." Drmies (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  A 41 story building is  generally notable--it is always possible to find sources for its planning and zoning and construction-- especially if it's one of the largest building of its type in a major city. In this case, it seems to have been a notable financial failure also, & there's enough news coverage for that at least.    DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. DGG sums up my position well - it's notable for several things, including its size and failure, especially since there is coverage for both. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Abductive and DGG. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:20, 16 December 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.