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. Withdrawn by the nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the ((db-spam)) tag because the article has been cleaned up the creator so that ((db-spam)) no longer applies. Notability is also asserted because Robert A. M. Stern, the the Dean of Architecture at Yale University, designed the condominiums. However, I have been unable to find sources to establish notability. A Google News Archive search returns only one result, which is a passing mention. This topic appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it still reads like a developer's brochure; that could be cleaned up, but I don't think there's be much left. The architect may be notable, but there is no indication that this building is. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the building may not be notable to others, it is a new landmark in Stamford, CT and has gotten the attention of the New York Times, Elite Traveler, and the 203 Magazine, among others. Robert A.M. Stern also has a lot of information about Highgrove on his website as well. Also, the amenities are very unique and they deserve to be recognized. Todtanis (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) — Todtanis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "Highgrove offers numerous and unique amenities including:" ? Spam. Peridon (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Style is not a reason for deletion. Many worthwhile articles started their WikiLives in poor shape. - Eastmain (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn/Keep Though this source appears unreliable, the other two sources provided by Todtanis (talk · contribs), this article from Elite Traveler and this article from The New York Times, easily establish notability. My deletion nomination is no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The project's name appears to be simply Highgrove, so perhaps the article could be moved to Highgrove (Stamford, Connecticut). - Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the presence of valid reliable sources such as the New York Times. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 09:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is still a promotional brochure contributed almost exclusively by an experienced editor sailing under a false flag. All the 3 so-called sources for notability (including the NYT's -Real Estate section) do not qualify as RS here for the reason that it is established industry practice to get "editorial coverage" in these publications against paid advertisements. The core of WP:V is reliable 3rd party sources with a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments". None of these essential qualities are evident in the sources cited - who are content with peddling puffery. Annette46 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why The New York Times, which is well-known for its fact-checking and accuracy, is "content with peddling puffery". I consider the article to be a neutral, reliable source that establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." I am highlighting my concern of quid pro quo in the 3 sources cited. Had the NYT article not been published in the "Real Estate" section of the newspaper (and which section is not devoid of advertisements) I would not be voicing this concern. I am distinguishing a Reliable source like The New York Times from its advertorial "Real Estate" section. Annette46 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any article that is the subject of a full feature article in the NYT is suitable for Wikipedia. (I do not extend this to brief paragraph, and certainly not to mentions. But here, this is enough. Anyone who doubts that source's standards should be prepared to offer some proof. . DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not familiar with the pint editions of American newspapers, but I have yet to encounter any British or Irish newspaper (including the broadsheets) whose property supplement is are anything other than puffery for the developers and agents whose advertisements fill the pages. If an article in a property supplement is to be taken as evidence of notability, then anyone can take the weekend property supplements of the Irish Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times etc and churn out dozens of articles per week on the five-or-six-bedroom rural and suburban family houses which fill those pages. How about 38 Wilson Road? Or, at a little more length, Bay Hill, Foxrock? If you want even more substantial coverage, try Ravenswood, Bunclody, County Wexford.
That sort of puffery is standard dare for the property pages of upmarket broadsheet papers, which are (as Annette46 rightly says) "advertorial". "Independent of the subject" , my arse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with BrownHairedGirl; the NYT property supplement reference does not persuade me to change my "delete" vote - if one didn't know these supplements are "advertorials" its promotional tone gives it away - and I urge Cunard to think again. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article from The New York Times which was written before Highgrove was developed; as far as I know, it did not appear in the real estate section.
Being published in the real estate section of a newspaper does not necessarily mean that it is an ad. I don't see much promotion in this article so I am not sure why it is being discounted. Anyway, I've asked DGG to take another look at this source and will wait until he gives his opinion as to whether it is an ad before I reconsider my "keep" position. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the NYT source: Although the article contains some promotional language, it has some language that indicates that it was not written by people who were involved with Highgrove. For example, the article states, "The price for all this pampering is steep - the current range is about $1.3 million to $3.5 million ..." An advertisement would call its product expensive; it would concentrate on the other aspects of the place instead of the costly price. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second NYT article you link, from before the block was built, was also in the real estate section - see the heading at the top. Articles in these sections are not directly advertisements, and not actually written by the developers, but are primarily produced to attract advertising, are invariably positive in tone and feature interviews with the developers (eg Jessica Dee Rohm, "Sunshine's project manager and Highgrove's sales director" in the first one), real estate brokers, people who have already purchased - all people with an interest in making an ordinary if expensive block sound fantastic. I do not think they can be used as "independent" comment to establish notability because, unlike the main paper, the editorial choice of what to feature is not determined only by "which things are notable enough to interest our readers?", but to a large extent by "which developers will buy ads if we feature their properties?" This article seems to me part of the same advertising push for a block whose only distinction is that it is rather up-market for its area. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When User:Cunard first nominated this article for deletion there was a categorical assertion on his part of only a single hit in the Google News Archives for the project which was described as a "passing mention". Then other users located 3 references of which the NYT was described as being the most reliable - sufficient for User:Cunard to withdraw his Afd for a "keep". The truth of the matter is that there are at least a 100 hits for this property in the Google News Archives - the bulk of which are inconvenient for this article's proponents to cite being from the property trade rags. See this [1].Even the 2 NYT articles now being cited are not "news" or "feature" articles. They are simply advertorial content which fills in the space between advertisements in the NYT Real Estate supplement. Neither of these articles establish the inherent notability of the project. At best they claim that some developer is bringing high end luxury of the type found in New York (since before the 2nd World War) to Stamford Connecticut. The following quote is incisive "The residents' garage will be equipped with two elevators for storing cars in tandem, one behind the other, eliminating ramps. Both elevator systems are firsts in the state. The multiple elevator cores, Mr. Stern said, are the kind of thing you have in the best New York apartments from before the Second World War." Annette46 (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about NYT Article - The most current New York Times article definitely would not be considered an advertisement. It compares Highgrove with its competitor, Trump Parc, and discusses how sales are not as high as expected. No marketing manager would pay for an article to discuss how sales aren't ideal and then bring attention to its competitor. The other articles don't even seem like advertisements either, as they bring attention to some other negatives as well, including delays in construction. The New York Times, however, isn't the only source. There is also Elite Traveler, the 203 Magazine, and many local papers and magazines as well. Todtanis (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. This is advertising no matter how you slice it. Is this what Wikipedia has been reduced to, really? JBsupreme (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this series of articles, the NYT chooses various major developments and write a neutral article about them ( sometimes the main content is how slowly it's been selling -- itt varies according to what their reporters --( italics deliberate) choose to say and their editors (italics again deliberate), choose to include. That they do an article on a particular project shows that this particular one is notable. As for the Wikipedia article, yes, it is somewhat too promotional. This is normally dealt with by editing. I rewrite a few promotional articles on notable subjects a day. But we have a great many that need rewriting, and we could begin to make some real progress if other people helped in doing this, instead of repeating each other's arguments. I did a start for this--will someone please finish--preferably one of the delete voters, for they need the experience of doing constructive rather than destructive work with low-quality articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, and withdrawn nomination. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The project is the subject of multiple full-length articles in an independent reliable source of general interest. If the article is defective, then fix it—but there is not a single argument about that suggests the topic fails the notability guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If people believe that the real estate section of the NYT is not a reliable source, that should be addressed in the appropriate venue, not here. If a discussion there concludes that it is not a reliable source, then a new AfD can be filed. ^Bongo_matic 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a dressed up press release and most of the sources are just that PR regurgitated --Chuunen Baka (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. In its present state the article content is no longer promotional and adequately establishes notability. However, the article title remains non-neutral and must be changed. I42 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. Per above. Three NYT articles about its construction and impact, which include the kind of details that make for an interesting Wikipedia article. And...reporters and editors and publications always choose what to include and exclude...isn't that the judgment, credibility and oversight needed to meet WP:RS? I didn't see anything in the articles that indicated they were advertorials or unbalanced, and the NYT's ethical policies also apply to freelancers. Flowanda | Talk 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:COI "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". Can we also have a categorical assurance on behalf of the developer "ceebraidsignal.com" that they have not advertised in the sources being cited.Annette46 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. At least as far as print versions, I'm not sure I've ever seen a real estate supplement article that wasn't accompanied by a big ad somewhere close. I think that's the deal, you advertise, we do a little article about your development. Not quite to the level of a puff-piece, but perhaps not extensively discussing the slaughterhouse next door. For instance, community opposition will sometimes be mentioned, followed by a list of things the developer did in response to concerns. I would expect all the facts in a real-estate supplement to be true, but the editorial choice to cover the development in the first place IMO says nothing about notability, it says more about money and successful PR. Just my opinion of course... Franamax (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Opinion. If this had been a one off case concerning User:Todtanis I would not have brought this up, but after his paid single purpose editing see WP:SPA, incl. creation and editing at Omphoy Ocean Resort and The Brazilian Court (all incidentally properties of the present developer "ceebraidsignal.com") I must formally ask this user to clearly identify his COI before I proceed to OUT him. This is not a notability issue any more but systematic commercial POV pushing conflicting with WP aims for a neutral encyclopedia. There has also been some extensive & recent Single Purpose IP editing directly relevant to this article from IP "69.121.192.8" Annette46 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Annette46, spam, COI, and NPOV editing are huge problems for Wikipeida. However, they are distinct (although related) from notability problems for articles, and the solution is not generally deletion. Sanctions, bans, and other editor-based restrictions, plus fixes to articles are the appropriate solution, and your efforts to combat these disruptions is laudable. But deletion of well-sourced content on notable topics benefits nobody. ^Bongo_matic 10:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, maybe, but thanks all the same to Annette46 and all the editors who fixed this particular train wreck. Bunch more where this editor/s came from with nary a sanction/ban/restriction in sight for anyone but the most obvious or lowest-level abusers. Flowanda | Talk 11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Spammers exploit (and fan) the deliberately created misunderstandings between "Notability" and "Verifiability". Is WP merely a random collection of verifiable facts ? For instance, Yes, the facts about this condominium (eg. the fact that it is situated at Stamford, that it is designed by Stern, that it has 18 floors etc etc) are verifiable from the sources being held up (wrongly) as evidence of notability. However, the dictionary definition of notability (noteworthiness) translates to something like "eminent", "standing out from its peers", "exceptional" etc. What does this condominium have which satisfies such a "duck test" from independent sources? ZERO, zilch, nada !!!! Instead we have obviously paid for advertorials masquerading as editorial content (thereby ensuring verifiability) to allow professional PR editors to game the system and a chorus of spammers stacking votes on Afds. Need I remind my fellow editors that Verifiability and coverage only provide a presumption of notability but not notability itself. When we observe systematic POV pushers editing freely why should we not OUT them, rather than be victimised ourselves for harassment ? Annette46 (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't go by the dictionary definition of notability here. We go by the guidelines, however faulty they may be (which is very). And as I mentioned before, if a particular section of the NYT should not be considered a reliable source per those guidelines, then that needs to be established at the RS discussion page. Much that is Notable is not notable, but we live within these compromises in order to move on. ^Bongo_matic 14:43, 16 January 2010 (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.