Talk:Park Point at RIT

message: I'm trying to figure out if PP@RIT is leased or sold. On the news section of the PP@RIT site, it has one story stating that RIT was going to lease the land, then sold it to Wilmorite: 
RIT launched the Collegetown idea and sought a developer with the idea that the retail and housing largely would benefit its students and employees. Now the university is selling Wilmorite the 60 acres, instead of leasing it to the developer. That way RIT plays no role in the financing of the project and no RIT resources will be used in the project, said university spokesman Bob Finnerty. 
http://parkpointrit.com/News/Article.aspx?id=91
However, a later story states that the land is being leased:
Wilmorite's $72 million Park Point project, on a corner of land it is leasing from RIT, is scheduled to be complete by August. 
http://parkpointrit.com/News/Article.aspx?id=94
So, is there an official reference (perhaps monroe county), which can clear this up?
--Terrillja (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Through all the research I've done, it seems as though all articles prior to June 07 say 'Sold', whereas all articles after November '07 say 'Leased'. As a student at RIT, I do recall hearing stories to that effect through the grape vine around that time. I am still looking through articles hosted by RIT to find a specific source (ie the Reporter and Staff Council minutes). Mjf3719 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Leased or sold?

message: Park Point is Physically located in Henrietta, NY. However, it's also located on RIT's campus, which in an international sense, is in Rochester, NY. To further complicate the matter, all of RIT's campus has the 14623 zip code, which is a Rochester mailing address. Which should we use here? Mjf3719 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's appropriate to cite the location as being in Henrietta. RIT has international acclaim, whereas I doubt anyone outside of Monroe County actually knows what 'Park Point at RIT' is by name. Another reason to use Henrietta is that PP is a commercial venture not just for RIT students, but is also an attempt to draw in on the Commercialism of Jefferson Road, as well as open RIT up to the public/un-isolate RIT's campus. Mjf3719 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well all PP@RIT mailing addresses are Rochester, so to me that would mean it's located in Rochester, at least as far as USPS is concerned. --Terrillja (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henrietta or Rochester 

message: Does anyone know if the store at RIT is a Barnes & Noble or a Barnes & Noble College Booksellers? HERE is a link to the B&NCB website for RIT; their number is 585-475 number, just as most RIT numbers are. Does anyone know off hand? Mjf3719 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct with your revisions. It is Barnes & Noble College Booksellers. Thanks for bringing it up, never knew that it wasn't considered a subsidiary - interesting fact! By the way, great work on the article! It's looking good! --Dan LeveilleTALK 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnes and Nobles, or Barnes and Nobles College Booksellers ? 

message: I don't agree that this article should be deleted. Park Point is going to be a big part of RIT, and Rochester as a whole. Some articles about Wilmorite Properties' other properties are probably even less notable. Even more so in the next few months, when Park Point comes nearer to completion. Please let me know why you disagree. --Dan LeveilleTALK 07:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I have nothing against this project, but you can not point to other articles (most of which also have some sort of warning on them) as justification or lack there of for this article, and Wikipedia specificially says (as already noted aboce) articles should not be written based on the speculation that the topic may receive additional covereage in the future."  You have no way of knowing that this will ro will not become a big part (which is terribly ambiguous to start with) of RIT or Rochester.  I didn't make the rules, the Wikipedia community did and BCB375 and the anonymous user that nominanted the page are, in my opinion, just following them.  With that said, as a good user of wikipedia, it's not up to me, or you, to decide these rules no longer apply.  With the number of posts made by one person and only one person to keep this article, this seems much more like a personal desire to keep the page online than an interest in furthering the goals of Wikipedia (being encyclopedic).  Mullaneywt (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Park Point at RIT is being built as a multi use (shopping/dining/living) property, similar to the The Loop (Methuen, MA)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loop_(Methuen%2C_MA), which is not a disputed article. This should not however be part of the universities project IMO, since the land is not owned by RIT. There will certainly be a strong bond with RIT however, due to location a well as the Barnes & Noble. As far as notability, the property is a landmark and is unarguably tied to RIT, since its bookstore is on the PP@RIT property. Terrillja (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not so sure if it shouldn't be a part of universities project, though not currently owned by RIT, RIT will own it back in the future. --Dan LeveilleTALK 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Terrillja that PP@RIT is a unique venture that is very uncommon in that entertainment, restraunts, and residential areas are all found within a very small location. Sure, the land technically isn't owned by RIT, but it's common knowledge in the area that Park Point is on RIT's campus. As more and more shops/restraunt's open up at Park Point, it will have more of a draw not only to the College Students that it was built for, but will also bring RIT closer to the [] community (or, rather, will bring the community closer to RIT, thus attempting to open RIT to the general public). I think a more appropriate discussion would be whether this article should be merged with the RIT article, as opposed to being marked for deletion.  Mjf3719 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not too unique. Here is The Loop, Northborough, MA, a mixed use development in many ways similar to PP@RIT, though not for college students: http://www.nedevelopment.com/portfolio/northborough/index.html FWIW, there is no wikipedia article on it yet because right now the development is pretty much just a big hole in the ground.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrillja (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd

message: 68.47.175.21 added a banner stating that this article is written in the tone of an advertisement (link). 
:Since I wrote the majority of the content here, I'm slightly biased. However, unless someone make specifics points to support this claim, will another editor remove this tag after a few days? Mjf3719 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on the user's talk page asking where they felt the page was worded as an advert, but if they don't reply within a few days, I will remove the tag.--Terrillja (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article definitely doesn't read as an advert. However, it is a bit unencyclopedic because it's too detailed. Building numbers, examples of supplies offered, descriptions of exact locations and relation to each other, and that type of detail is unneeded. I made some changes to the article, and removed excessive information. As you write for Wikipedia, you should think "should this info really be included in an encyclopedia?" Your edits are much appreciated though! :) --Dan LeveilleTALK 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the article being nominated as AfD, I figured adding more was better than not adding. However, as my wikipedia muscle grows stronger, I agree about 'excessive information.' Oh, and thanks for not biting the newcomer. Mjf3719 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Having looked over the article again, I firmly agree with Danlev's assessment and revisions. 68.47.175.21 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: There have been several edits recently, adding and removing the link to Lovin' Cup from the main article.
According to WP:LINKS, External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. However, Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. 
Currently, Lovin' Cup (LC) is not notable enough for it's own article. Thus, I feel an external link at this portion of the article is justified as a service to the reader. Additionally, Lovin' Cup is not affiliated with Park Point (other than being a tenant); thus, I do not feel that by itself LC warrants it's own external link at External Links section of the PP@RIT article.
If the other shoppes at Park Point have websites, I would similarly feel inclined to include external links in this section as opposed to in the External Links section. Mjf3719 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovin' Cup Link 

message: There has been some edit warring over the following: Though it is a "Barnes and Noble" book store, the name of the store is "Barnes and Toni Noble" after park point benefactor Toni Noble who donated a generous amount of money to the Park Point "college town" project. Anonymous user(s) have been adding it back in every few days, but haven't provided a source. It's an interesting little fact, but without a source it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. I, myself, am not sure if the anon-editor means B&N@PP or all of B&N. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No clue, but until they provide a ref, I'll keep removing it and asking them to provide a ref. --Terrillja talk 21:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnes & Toni Noble Store 

message: In this edit, User:Fightin' Phillie removed the improvement tags, citing "7 different groups represented in references, D&C as reliable secondary source".
The reality is that, after a year and a half, there are zero WP:Reliable sources used to back up statements put forth in this article:
#The D&C article is a dead link and therefore is useless for purposes of WP:Verifiability
#The remaining "sources" come from three websites:  Wilmorite's (the commercial developer), Reporter (the student magazine), and RIT itself.  Nobody would consider any of these WP:Reliable sources as they are all published by organizations with WP:Conflict of interest.
As WP:SOURCES#Sources states, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  Several contributors have raised the issue of notability (see Talk:Park Point at RIT#Notability) in the past.  It would be helpful if editors would read the Wikipedia:GNG#General notability guideline as their intuition appears to be in conflict with that guideline.  The "sources" presented in the article as written clearly fail to establish notability as they all fail the "reliable", "secondary sources", and "independent of the subject" criteria put forth there.
Finally, the article itself does not assert the notability of the subject.  What is it that makes this shopping development notable?  If this shopping development is notable, is the Show World plaza on Brighton-Henrietta Townline Road notable?
Until we can properly source the statements and clearly state why this commercial undertaking is notable (as established by one or more sources), the improvement tags should stay in place.
—129.21.177.112 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I provided the info on the paper articles now. Now you need a database to look them up, rather than just reading them on the PP website, but hopefully this makes you feel better about the articles, even though they are harder to access.--Terrillja talk 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and reliable sources