Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Towers (Jersey City)

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. Despite the fact that no significant sources were put forward during this AfD, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Towers (Jersey City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep J.P.Morgan have bought the building for $300M – that seems economically important. There's more coverage in the New York Times and here's a report on its opening. Finding sources for such a substantial project is just a matter of looking – please see our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reason to keep is JP Morgan bought the building, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Otherwise coverage is lacking, there needs to be more than just local sources and the building itself is not the subject of that New York Times article.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Large building this size are very likely to be notable , and they generally have sufficient coverage if looked for carefully. To a considerable extent, in businesses and similar topics, financial size is a relevant consideration, if not a formal criterion. Crains is a reasonably reliable source. Some articles on topics like this have a problem with promotionalism , but his one seems ok. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DGG made a very convincing argument. Dream Focus 21:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale of DGG. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I am not convinced by DGG's argument. If Crain's is the only reliable source that's not enough. WP:NBUILD require significant coverage by sources (with an s, meaning more than one).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale of DGG. If Keep doesn't work, than Redirect,as I am not finding a lot of sources yet. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the tallest buildings in Jersey City page. The sourcing on the page as it stands is terrible, and the sourcing found above is marginal. We can always recreate if/when it becomes more notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 26 June 2019 (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.