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. W.marsh 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

255 McKibbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."

This looks like some urban factory where they made mattresses or light bulbs or something. Was the first light bulb manufactured there? There must be literately thousands of these buildings all across America. Just because some "artists" currently live there does not make it notable. Did Andy Warhol live there, or was it a textile factory for the last hundred years. Just because _you_ live there does not make it notable, regardless of the awesomeness of your Pabst parties. Furthermore a mention in some Gawker article is not notability. Anyone can write a blog post, that is the definition of a blog. Was there an editor involved, was there any research done on this building for the article. Again, because some friend of a friend wrote something on a blog doesn't mean anything regardless of readership. A lot of people also bought the Weekly World News, should there be wikipedia articles about alien babies. If this continues, next thing you know every Hipster in Williamsburg is going to want to write a wikipedia article on the converted loft they currently live in, to re-enforce the awesomeness of the apartment they're paying $3K a month to live in. In marketing terms, this is called "diluting the brand" every address in the world could potentially have its own wikipedia entry, but why. What thirteen year-old is going to look up "12 Main", or whatever.

In other words it is a non notable building; it is not a historical buidling, or an architectural masterpiece; it is not influential nor heavily discussed, and certainly not "somewhat legendary" as described in the article discussion. Plus no claims of importance in the article. Delete please. - DrVonMalfoy (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DrVonMalfoy] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

• Keep - Significant complex in the New York City artist/hipster community, as indicated by the New York Magazine and The New York Times. Contrary to the nom's stipulation, a building can be notable if the first light bulb wasn't manufactured there. --Oakshade 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slowly -- there is an assertion of notability within the article("a hipster landmark"), but the building has not been reported by reliable sources as notable. The mainstream sources cover the neighborhood, but a building does not assume notability from that. The only two sources that refer to 255 McKibbin directly are a blog and the New York City Department of Buildings, which you would actually expect to have a listing of all buildings, not just notable ones. This website - [1] - claims that there are 950,000 buildings in NYC, so we should be extremely selective in which ones we choose to cover. (The neighborhood seems to be covered even more than the building in this article, and seems possibly notable enough -- but that's a debate for another day.) Deltopia 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A source doesn't have to actually say "255 McKibbin is notable." As long as the topic is the subject of the secondary reliable source, it's notable. They don't actually have to refer to it as "255 McKibbin" either as it's the actual building those sources are referring to, even if they don't entitle it like the Wikipeidia article does.--Oakshade 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some actual source somewhere needs to say that this specific building, by some identifiable name, is notable to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE. Is the notability actually in question? Do you have firsthand knowledge? Deltopia 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also of note: See line six of Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create. :) Deltopia 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only is that essay convoluted and self-contradictory (no wonder it's nominated for deletion), you're claiming the article creator actually lives there. Any evidence of that or is that a blind bad faith personal attack? An apartment building does not have to be The Dakota to be notable, regardless if a Wikipedia editor lives there or not. Send 834 Fifth Avenue to AfD if you honestly disagree. --Oakshade 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a guideline and it's not binding (WP:NOTE and WP:V are), I just thought it was an amusing coincidence that near the top of that list of ideas generally recognized as bad was apartment buildings. The article is clearly written with irony in mind (although, like much humor, it doesn't necessarily attain it), which is why it provides counterexamples to many of its admonitions. That does not mean the admonitions themselves are less valid; exceptions test the rule, but do not invalidate it. But forget the essay. I will change my assessment to Keep immediately if we find a verifiable claim of notability. Until then, I remain convinced that most apartment buildings are not notable. 834 Fifth Avenue says, right at the top, " It has been called 'the most pedigreed building on the snobbiest street in the country’s most real estate-obsessed city' in an article in the New York Observer newpaper." That's what I'm looking for - a notable claim from a notable source.Deltopia 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:HEY. It appears to have been sourced since nomination. Bearian 17:14, 15 October 2007 (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.