Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marbella Apartments

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella Apartments

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was the tallest in Jersey City when built but is now not so outstanding. But a second tower has been built in the complex. That seems to be known as "M2 at Marbella" and, being newer, is easier to find sources for, e.g. this. There's no reason to delete this developing complex as our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage, I added a few sources to the page. More sources available at nj.com, [1], the website owned by teh Star Ledger tha thosts many New Jersey newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . If it was notable for being the tallest in thecity once, it remains notable--just as for every topic. Large buildings likethis usully have sufficient sources if looked for carefully, , as does this. The article isn';t promotional , which can sometimes be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a subject is notable it remains notable. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well sourced. Barca (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tallest buildings in Jersey City. Unfortunately, the keep !votes above haven't identified the fact the sourcing here is actually quite terrible - the best is entirely promotional from nj.com and still only mentions the building about four times. The rest just offer passing mentions of the building. On the whole, the building fails WP:GNG. We're better off redirecting it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw both of those. I have no idea how they're WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited, added two more sources. More coverage exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources proving it is notable have been found and the article expanded. Dream Focus 16:50, 26 June 2019 (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.