Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/740 Park Avenue

From 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 Speedy Keep by non adminstrator, Tellyaddict 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 740 Park Avenue

740_Park_Avenue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I originally prod'd it. While quality of article has significantly improved, it still has too many opinions (5th vs. Park Avenue for example) and what seems like fact is not referenced. Yes, books and articles have been referenced but they are not linked to specific facts such as it allegedly having the highest ceillings or who the architechts were. This article need not be written more than once to be properly written and readers need not go through all the listed references to verify the alleged facts. Postcard Cathy 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, even speedy keep, quick Googling confirms the general claims (but the article needs a rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV). [1][2][3] (including paysites). A notable building from construction to present day. --Dhartung | Talk 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Note, Postcard Cathy, the quality of the article is not a rationale for deletion. It needs cleanup and other attention, but the topic is notable. This wasn't the proper route to getting it fixed. AFD is not for content disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - listed as one of the most significant buildings by architect Rosario Candela, and article establishes notability. The article probably needs some cleanup, but that's not a matter for AfD. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I live 4000 miles away from this building and I'd already heard of it. Postcard Cathy's reasoning seems like a (inadvertent) bad faith nom. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as mentioned, AFD is not the proper avenue for cleanup requests, and the article proves notability. JavaTenor 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously notable, AFD is not cleanup. --W.marsh 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per the other speedy keeps. Acalamari 18:47, 10 April 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.