Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 The Esplanade

25 The Esplanade

25 The Esplanade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG --David Tornheim (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no reliable source coverage being shown about the building to get it over WP:GNG for anything; all of the sources are either primary sources or indiscriminate "all buildings in" directories. And this isn't a personal lack of familiarity with the topic either, for the record — not only do I live in Toronto, I've been physically in this building before because I have a friend who used to live in it. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Simply does not have the reliable coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. There are quite a few articles about tall buildings in Toronto, some articles are about buildings smaller than this one. Why delete this article specifically? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The inclusion standard for buildings on Wikipedia is not "any building over a certain height", but hinges on whether the building is the subject of reliable source coverage in media or not. Any other building which doesn't have reliable source coverage in media should also be deleted, while any other building which does have reliable source coverage in media is not directly equivalent to this one just because of a height comparison alone — it is entirely possible for a shorter building to be more notable than a taller one, if the shorter building has the depth of reliable source coverage required and the taller one doesn't, because our inclusion criteria for buildings are based on the sourceability and not the height per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not to worry: I will soon be nominating the rest of them that are not notable when this was done. This was the first building on that long list of yellow page advertisements that need to go, and I used this and another one as test cases. You might want to take a look at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Are_we_now_a_Yellow_Pages_for_U.K._Realty.3F (permalink to its present form). --David Tornheim (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:GEOFEAT. As David mentions, some of the other buildings don't seem likely to be notable, either, although I'm not likely to research notability of Toronto condos! I was interested in the process that brought the David to AFD this building. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Too bad, but yes. I just don't see the coverage. BTW it's linked from List of buildings named Flatiron Building which is problematic because while it looks like a flatiron building it isn't named one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- We don't delete poorly written articles when the topic itself is notable.

  What is missing from the article, what nominator seems unaware of, and what those weighing in with "delete" opinions seem unaware of, is that the infamous "Kettling" of about four hundred G20 protesters and innocent bystanders occurred in front of this building, fwiw. Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually we do delete poorly written articles per WP:TNT.

Well, if the Kettling was notable, surely you will have independent reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that speak about it. That doesn't make the building notable, but the incident. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)