Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1430 K Street
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 keep per WP:RS and WP:N. Possible WP:SNOW. The references provided in this article clearly demonstrate that this building is notable. Although buildings aren't inherently notable - my local post office would be lucky - this one meets the requirements. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1430 K Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A twelve story building. And... err... that's it. Absolutely no indication why this is important or significant, and the only sources are the usual two building directories. They are directories, we are not. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the only guideline I could find in relation to the notability of buildings like this. On the other hand, it hasn't recieved significant coverage in non-specialist sources like newspapers etc, which I'm sure buildings like the empire state building recieve at least once a month.--Serviam (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Topics are not required to be important or significant. But, as it happens, this building is significant as the first in a new real estate trend noticed by the New York Times. I have updated the article accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I also expanded it more by adding a source from the Washington Post and news as it headquarters Lulac.--SRX 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Asserts notability through sources. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep — The building in question clearly exists. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is rather interesting reasoning. I'm fairly certain I can prove my house exists. Does that make it notable? Resolute 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it doesn't make it "notable", whatever that means. But "notability" is irrelevant. All that matters is existence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. This is simply wrong. There is a Wikipedia guideline that demands notability. It is not sufficient to prove that something exists to justify an article. Reyk YO! 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Kurt edits a cloudcookoolander version of Wikipedia in which by ignoring the long-standing consensus of other users, he can change that consensus. He's perfectly aware of what you're pointing out, and is consciously defying it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never had anything to do with this Kurt Weber person before so naturally I prefer to believe he's merely mistaken, rather than bad or stupid. Reyk YO! 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the guideline you refer to. It's irrelevant. It's wrong. It's totally non-prescriptive, and we are under no obligation to heed it. What the so-called "rules" say is irrelevant; all that matters is what's best for Wikipedia. Please explain how removing this article would be best for Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's best for Wikipedia is to not indiscriminately include every single thing that exists. The rule is right. BTW, you'll notice I argued to keep this particular article, but I don't always vote to keep everything. Some things we are better off without. Reyk YO! 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what would be best would indeed be to include everything that exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no it wouldn't. And you should be aware that if you continue to push this opinion, you'll be arguing against policy, overwhelming consensus and common sense. In short, you're quite wrong. Reyk YO! 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing against so-called "policies" doesn't make one wrong, because they're totally non-binding and totally non-prescriptive. Sometimes they're wrong themselves, in which case arguing against them makes one right. Same goes for consensus--arguing against consensus does not make one wrong; rather, arguing against consensus is how consensus gets changed when the existing consensus is wrong. Really, I think you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *wonders why people still take Kmweber seriously* JuJube (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suffice it to say, Kurt is consciously ignoring WP policy (in a civil, non-disruptive, and somewhat futile way) for what he feels are good reasons. Pointing out the policy is unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *wonders why people still take Kmweber seriously* JuJube (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing against so-called "policies" doesn't make one wrong, because they're totally non-binding and totally non-prescriptive. Sometimes they're wrong themselves, in which case arguing against them makes one right. Same goes for consensus--arguing against consensus does not make one wrong; rather, arguing against consensus is how consensus gets changed when the existing consensus is wrong. Really, I think you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no it wouldn't. And you should be aware that if you continue to push this opinion, you'll be arguing against policy, overwhelming consensus and common sense. In short, you're quite wrong. Reyk YO! 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what would be best would indeed be to include everything that exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's best for Wikipedia is to not indiscriminately include every single thing that exists. The rule is right. BTW, you'll notice I argued to keep this particular article, but I don't always vote to keep everything. Some things we are better off without. Reyk YO! 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the guideline you refer to. It's irrelevant. It's wrong. It's totally non-prescriptive, and we are under no obligation to heed it. What the so-called "rules" say is irrelevant; all that matters is what's best for Wikipedia. Please explain how removing this article would be best for Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never had anything to do with this Kurt Weber person before so naturally I prefer to believe he's merely mistaken, rather than bad or stupid. Reyk YO! 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Kurt edits a cloudcookoolander version of Wikipedia in which by ignoring the long-standing consensus of other users, he can change that consensus. He's perfectly aware of what you're pointing out, and is consciously defying it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. This is simply wrong. There is a Wikipedia guideline that demands notability. It is not sufficient to prove that something exists to justify an article. Reyk YO! 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it doesn't make it "notable", whatever that means. But "notability" is irrelevant. All that matters is existence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is rather interesting reasoning. I'm fairly certain I can prove my house exists. Does that make it notable? Resolute 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:RS. Notability does not appear to be in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep- per SRX's expansion, which barely bumps this to notable status, but I would not be using this AFD discussion as a precedent for keeping articles on any other twelve-storey building in the world. Reyk YO! 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possibly merge to condominium. This is noteworthy as the beginning of a major trend, but probably doesn't have any role other than as a part of that trend as far as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As said above, notable not for its architecture but for its financial structure. DGG (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A couple of non-trivial articles in prominent newspapers establish notability. Axl (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (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.