Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 State Street

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 State Street

  • Delete: Non-notable building (at least not that I can tell from the article). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Do a google search on just "17 State Street", you'll get over 50,000 hits. I think that speaks for itself. --Daniel Olsen 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yeah, it's an address. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it wasn't notable. What differentiates it from large buildings worldwide? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think somewhere in those 50,000 ghits there are articles about the building's construction, notable tenants, etc. I think when you build a 40 story building it generally attracts a bit of media attention. Do we have a notability guideline for buildings yet? --Daniel Olsen 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although if the article is sufficiently expanded (showing that its construction was notable and commented upon, that it represents a milestone in architectural achievement, that it has a long and storied history), then I might change my mind. Cool building, but Manhattan is choking to death on cool buildings; to be notable, a building needs to be exceptional. Captainktainer * Talk 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get over 1,000,000 hits in google. Leidiot 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you enclose it in quotes? At which point you get less than 74,000. From there, how many of them actually refer to the building in question, and not some random "17 State Street" in Missoula? The Google Test does not establish notability! Nobody has been able to offer up any proof of notability or any reliable sources; just "I saw it on Google." You can't write an article with "I saw it on Google." You write an article using reliable sources, from a neutral point of view. So far nobody has been able to come up with any information that allows us to write a complete article that satisfies the NPOV policy; nobody has been able to come up with any reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable Manhattan skyscraper (245 buildings existing/planned/used to exist with 40+ storeys in NYC - see link in my comment above) Bwithh 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have plenty of articles on shorter skyscrapers (e.g., Chase Center (Phoenix)). The building also appears to host some sort of archaeology museum. Here are some links for consideration: [1], [2], [3], [4] [5]. (Some links are better than others, but hopefully, they'll give you a better picture of the skyscraper.) Zagalejo 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the archaeology exhibition/museum which is described by its creators in the NYTimes article as:"New York Unearthed will be a modest enterprise, its creators say, not a reason itself to make a trip to lower Manhattan but a worthwhile addition to a Battery-South Street itinerary." If the official blurb is that visiting the museum is not worth me taking a subway trip from Upper Manhattan to Lower Manhattan, it's probably not a notable exhibition. As for the Chase Center - why, that's the tallest building in all of Arizona, woohoo. But this is Manhattan we're talking about here. Bwithh 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think the circumstances that led to the museum's inclusion are interesting. And it currently has about 2 million items in its collection, which isn't too shabby. In any case, it's something distinct about the building that can be used to expand the article. And why should the building be penalized because Manhattan is so densley packed with skyscrapers? Would you really consider this building more notable if it had been in a smaller city? Zagalejo 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a nn smallish skyscraper. Marcus22 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are many skyscrapers on Wikipedia, but in its current state, this particular one fails WP:N. If it can be proved to be notable, I would change my state. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Google test isn't valid, because I'd bet half of the towns in America have a "State Street." I didn't even know Manhattan has one (and I live there), my first thought in looking at the article's name (before looking at the article) was that it was something in Trenton, NJ. —ExplorerCDT 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 12,900 google hits for "17 state street" + manhattan. Zagalejo 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, New York landmark. The BBC feature it in their "aeriel shots of Manhattan". [6] Kappa 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article. Could the folks that are voting keep here possibly put those findings in the article itself so it won't look so anemic? This AFD now has more assertion of notability than the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included some info about the archaeology museum. The article is still short, but an article shouldn't be deleted just because it is a stub. Zagalejo 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not being deleted because it's a stub, but because the building, while pretty, isn't really notable. —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was mainly addressing Wknight's comment, "I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article." But with regards to your argument -- are there any established notability criteria for skyscrapers? I would think that all buildings that exceed a certain height threshhold are inherently notable. The World Almanac traditionally lists every building in the US over 500 ft tall, and I don't see the harm of giving each of those structures a Wikipedia article.
  • And, actually, I think the aesthetic qualities you mentioned do lend it some notability. It's an easily recognizable part of the skyline, and it has inspired a fair amount of discussion on message boards, blogs, and photo-sharing sites: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. (These aren't the kinds of things that should be cited in the article, but they do suggest that many people are interested in the building.) Zagalejo 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who lives in New York knows this building by looks alone. Just to add its home to the museum as mentioned above and its google hits speak plenty considering the building is known by its address alone. --User:Zer0faults 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A greatly expanded article since the August version, the building has an unusual plan form for new york and clearly stands out from it's neighbors by it's use of colour and general grace. It's critical notability seems to be established here.

In the 1970s, some very interesting mid-size office buildings were erected by the William Kaufman Organization on the east side of Lower Manhattan - 77 Water Street and 127 John Street, and a bit later, the beautiful curved, reflective glass tower at 17 State Street, but these paled in comparison with the scale of the silvery twin towers of the World Trade Center, the strong vertical piers of One Chase Manhattan Plaza, and the ungainliness of the huge tower at 60 Wall Street for the Morgan bank.

Signed:--Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User:Zer0faults. Travb (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building is clearly distinctive especially when the skyline is seen from the harbor. I also read that there was an issue about the deal behind its construction. This involved the NY State Supreme Court. It also did not get a permanent occupancy certificate for years until after it was built. If we decide to keep it, I volunteer to format it, edit it, and make "a respectable article out of her".Gary Joseph 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Egad, of course this is notable, and extremely so. RFerreira 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reminder to new folks coming in: this was the article when I first came across it. I think it's notable myself now but people keep improving it as long as this open so I'm leaving it!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable New York building, many other comparable buildings have articles -- just because NYC has a lot of major building shouldn't be a reason to limit the articles. Tfine80 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/17_State_Street&oldid=1073377012"