Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Square Village


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington Square Village

 * — (View AfD)

It's an ordinary bulding. Should we have entries for every building? Partingale 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Big  top  00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete interesting and complete article, but needs to assert notability otherwise it is just another building. Daniel J. Leivick 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * merge/weak keep Should assert notability, otherwise it should be merged into another article -- Selmo  (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Just another housing estate dating from the late 1950's. Half the article is about the site which it is built on. We've deleted better articles, and articles on more interesting subjects than this. Ohconfucius 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Ohconfucius. Realkyhick 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An interesting article with ties to several distinct topics including the history of New York, architecture, city planning, and NYU. --Matth e w UND (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and interesting to read. This is what Wikipedia is for. Why were articles even better than this deleted? We add every cultural reference in Family Guy episodes to articles as if they were from the mouth of God, and there is no room for this? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; important and well-known buildings in New York City. -/- Warren 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs some work, but the building seems notable for its association with various topics in mid-20th century urban renewal. - Eron Talk 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable enough building. Yes we should have articles about similar buildings, if they are verified and have this amount of history.  The part about the buildings before makes the article better still. A "normal" building should probably be part on another article until it reaches this level of verified detail.Obina 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above: places and how they change is an important topic worthy of Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - more comprehensive than can be included in the NYU residence halls article. It isn't a historic building, but the history appears relevant.  In any case, I don't see any compelling argument for deletion.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - should be included with Washington Square North and Washington Square Park on a Washington Square, New York page similar to Washington Park, Chicago. TonyTheTiger 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is the type of article Wikipedia should have with respect to United States culture instead of all those Family Guy and South Park minor character stubs. Notability eminently established. The article itself is well-written. The facts are supported by verifiable reliable sources. -- Charlene 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A well written encyclopedic article of all verifiable material. Assertaion of notability is very well established.  --Oakshade 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait for sources, if not forthcoming Delete. It's a very interesting read and seems to be filled with information. Where does this information come from? As Ohconfucius points out there are almost no sources cited, and the sources cited (e.g. the private web site) aren't reliable sources for etablishing WP:N. The minimum notability criterion is an objective one -- show that the subject is mentioned in multiple published sources. This hasn't been done. THe area seems to get mentioned as a background fixture in media, e.g. here, but are there any WP:RS sources that actually discuss it or its history as a subject? --Shirahadasha 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These buildings were one of the reasons for which Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities. You can see multiple entries about the buildings in The New York Times. Ipeirotis 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability, especially related to Robert Moses's efforts to clear what he declared were slums and create sleek high-rise towers on superblocks, for which Washington Square Village was a prime example. While community protests failed to prevent construction of Washington Square Village, plans to run a new street, "South Fifth Avenue", through Washington Square Park failed, and were some of the precursors that led to the ascendancy of Jane Jacobs and her Death and Life, and the demise of both the Lower Manhattan Expressway and its chief sponsor, Robert Moses. Several articles have been added from The New York Times, which should meet WP:RS concerns, and go a long way to addressing any and all issues with this article. Alansohn 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A notable building that has been cited in many works. The article is quite good, too.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  22:57, 8 January 2007 (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.