Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 The Esplanade

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 delete. As noted, that other buildings have articles does not matter here one way or another - for all we know these articles need to be deleted as well. Consensus on the kettling episode seems to be that it has nothing to do with the building specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 The Esplanade

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
Delete Simply does not have the reliable coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Actually we do delete poorly written articles per the essays WP:TNT and WP:JUNK.

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) (revised 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC) per below)[reply]

WRT WP:TNT... Isn't it an essay? Note: from your wording a reader could believe you are stating it is a policy or guideline -- a wikidocument to be relied on. Further, isn't it talking about deletion as a last resort? Isn't deletion of articles on topics that are notable, reserved for articles where people have made sincere attempts to reach a compromise, and, in spite of genuine good faith efforts, have failed to do so?
WRT WP:JUNK... also an essay, not a policy or guideline. Could you please be careful not to imply essays are policies or guidelines?
While you did leave a comment on the talk pages of the article, and some related articles, weren't your talk page comments made shortly before you nominated them for deletion? Do you understand thi gives the appearance your talk page comments were not designed to be the beginning of a talk page discussion over your concerns? Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to give any impression of when I wrote on the talk page relative to the WP:AfD--anyone can easily check the timestamps. You can point out the timing there if you want, but please don't edit my comments. I wrote on the talk page, because Jacknstock was actively adding WP:PRIMARY and anyone who is changing the article including him should be aware that it is a problem.

I did not go to the talk page before submitting this WP:AfD, because I thought it would be trivial to get agreement that this building is not notable and that there was no need to discuss at the talk page first but quickly get this resolved. Now that someone is editing the article, it is necessary to make comments about those edits on the talk page of the article not just here, since this is obviously not going to be resolved any time soon. Unfortunately this is dragging on forever, and we have very few new eyes on this. At some point, we are going to need to get new eyes on this... --David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a notable incident occurred outside of a building doesn't confer notability on the building per se — the building is just a bystander in the notability of the incident, not a central player. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (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.