Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The James Monroe

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. Michig (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The James Monroe (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) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep This is part of the Lefrak Organisation's large Newport, Jersey City complex. It was one of its first large towers and there seems to have been coverage back in the 1980s such as in the New York Times. Our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention in a NY Times article is not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Newport, Jersey City. While there does seem to be sufficient coverage form back in th elate 80s, early 90s to support a freestanding page, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the large development of which it was part.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 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) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage when a developer constructed it. Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited above. Article has been improved since AFD proposed, . WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use WP:NOTPAPER as justification to have an article about everything imaginable. You added a New York Times article while has exactly two sentences about the building. Your other sources do not even mention the building. So, There is exactly one source with two sentences. WP:NBUILD requires " significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." Nothing has been improved.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Article and sourcing has also been improved since the proposed deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The building was notable in the late 1980s and does not need sustained notability. Once notable always notable. There is much non-trivial secondary source coverage including a 1988 New York Times article that I just added. I will continue to ferret out sources. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a stub 10 days ago. The article has come a long way. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. There's one good article on the building from its construction, it gets a mention in another article, and that's all I can find on it, so it doesn't quite pass WP:GNG. Part of the article is fluff and does not adequately cover the source material. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City per SportingFlyer. There is one decent source, but that is it. Extremely passing mentions in another article, and articles that do not discuss the tower at all, do not count as significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEY, changing my opinion following improvements to page by User:7&6=thirteen and User:Lubbad85.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be fooled by this WP:HEY. None of the new sources help the building pass WP:GNG, and 7&6=thirteen is adding irrelevant block quotes to all of these articles to provide "context." SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added more sources detailing the building's origins, construction and financing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article improvements prove it is notable. Dream Focus 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Sporting Flyer. - Mainly 17:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might have been an obvious "Keep" before, but with User:E.M.Gregory's improvements and comment above, it is now an obvious "Keep", IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep satfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 00:27, 3 July 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.