Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D Street Projects

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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D Street Projects

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

Non-notable orphan — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-descript, non-notable housing block. Tagged for over four and a half years without any improvement. Ravenswing 20:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, the nom gives no rationale as to why this topic is "non-notable" except to say that the article is an orphan, which of course is not a reason to delete. Being tagged for improvement for a long time is not reason to delete as there are thousands of stubs that have improvement tags and it's absolutely impossible to get around to every one of them, even in a several year time frame. This historic housing project easily passes WP:GNG with some very in-depth coverage from books and articles in both this name and its formal name "West Broadway Development". [1][2][3] Many pages dedicated to it in this book according to its index but we can't see them. --Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to be a "colorful" locale for many a novel but I don't see any factual description of this location that makes it distinctive and worthy of an article here. The burden of proof is on the editors who support that article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That subjective opinion is noted, but what does that have to do with the in-depth coverage this topic has received from independent reliable sources showing passing WP:GNG?--Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per and Oakshade. I have added some sources of my own to the article. Wincent77 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by Oakshade's argument; being an orphaned article is not a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 16 October 2013 (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.