Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summerset at Frick Park
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 Delete. WaltonAssistance! 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summerset at Frick Park
seems like an ad to me Postcard Cathy 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No assertion of notability; this could be any other housing development in the country. —dustmite 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable neighborhood. Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] --Oakshade 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - references are for two articles that are puff pieces that usually fill local papers "Homes" or "Real Estate" sections. The remaining article isn't about the development per se, but a dispute of bus routes in the development. -- Whpq 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a POV judgement on the independent published works and quite a non-objectivity charge at both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, not to mention the credited reporters. There is nothing trivial about the published works and the sources are reliable. --Oakshade 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think whether or not the sources are reliable is in dispute. The nature of the coverage is. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but just about every new housing development where I live gets some kind of coverage by local media. You'll note that the first source you provide reads essentially as an advert, mostly outlining the accomodations of the units. And, as Whpq says, the second source does not concern the developemtn per se. —dustmite 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Whpq was refferring to the 3rd source, the one that's entitled Will the bus stop here? Summerset residents don't want service. Regarding that 3rd article, I think the article about the neighborhood and an issue its having with the public transit service itself demonstrates the neighborhood inherently notable. Going back tot he first two articles, in my neck fo the woods, Los Angeles, where we have a gazillion new developments every week, no, the Los Angeles Times does not send their reporters out to write non-trivial published works about them unless there's a good reason to do so (size, distinctiveness, etc.). But that these two Pittsburgh newspapers did demonstrates notability of the subject they are covering. And I very much dissagree that the first article looks "like a advert" as it's a very thurough article about the history with the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority, financing and architetual style. The bottom line is, these are third part souces that have written non-trivial published works about the topic. --Oakshade 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the real estate section article, I think we disagree on the definition of "trivial". And I don't think we are likely to convince each other one way or the other, but we have alid our cards on the table and the closing admin can weigh the arguments. With respect to the third article, the occupants are obviously involved int he dispute and as such the development is mentioned, but the article isn't about the development itself. If a Pittsburgh pizza parlor ended up in a dispute over on-street parking that was reported in the local paper, would that support notability for the pizza parlor? I would say not, and this is essentially the same typwe of situation. -- Whpq 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CORP makes very clear its definition of trivial coverage: "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." The coverage about this development/neighborhood is not any of those things and not even close. You seem to dissagree and that's okay. As for the pizza parlor example, the topic isn't a single business, but an entire neighborhood that previously had non-trivial published works about it and the fictitious pizza parlor has not. --Oakshade 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the real estate section article, I think we disagree on the definition of "trivial". And I don't think we are likely to convince each other one way or the other, but we have alid our cards on the table and the closing admin can weigh the arguments. With respect to the third article, the occupants are obviously involved int he dispute and as such the development is mentioned, but the article isn't about the development itself. If a Pittsburgh pizza parlor ended up in a dispute over on-street parking that was reported in the local paper, would that support notability for the pizza parlor? I would say not, and this is essentially the same typwe of situation. -- Whpq 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Whpq was refferring to the 3rd source, the one that's entitled Will the bus stop here? Summerset residents don't want service. Regarding that 3rd article, I think the article about the neighborhood and an issue its having with the public transit service itself demonstrates the neighborhood inherently notable. Going back tot he first two articles, in my neck fo the woods, Los Angeles, where we have a gazillion new developments every week, no, the Los Angeles Times does not send their reporters out to write non-trivial published works about them unless there's a good reason to do so (size, distinctiveness, etc.). But that these two Pittsburgh newspapers did demonstrates notability of the subject they are covering. And I very much dissagree that the first article looks "like a advert" as it's a very thurough article about the history with the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority, financing and architetual style. The bottom line is, these are third part souces that have written non-trivial published works about the topic. --Oakshade 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think whether or not the sources are reliable is in dispute. The nature of the coverage is. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but just about every new housing development where I live gets some kind of coverage by local media. You'll note that the first source you provide reads essentially as an advert, mostly outlining the accomodations of the units. And, as Whpq says, the second source does not concern the developemtn per se. —dustmite 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a POV judgement on the independent published works and quite a non-objectivity charge at both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, not to mention the credited reporters. There is nothing trivial about the published works and the sources are reliable. --Oakshade 16:50, 28 May 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.
