Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1031 Canal

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1031 Canal[edit]

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

This is a proposed high rise that doesn't have much other than simple announcements of the proposed building. It's not even named other than the address right now. i don't think it meets WP:GNG. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. None of it's in the article right now, but this is a high-profile project that has been the subject of considerable attention and controversy, because it proposes to plunk a high-rise building right on the edge of the French Quarter in a very visible location at the corner of Canal Street and Rampart Street, replacing a vacant Woolworth (that's "Woolsworth" for you Confederacy of Dunces readers). The project and controversy have had extensive coverage; recent examples include [1][2], here's a 2005 post-Hurricane Katrina article about a previous version of the project [3], and here is a recent commentary in the architecture journal Metropolis[4].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add information to the article about the controversy (which appears to have been written to minimize same). A high-rise at the corner of Canal and Rampart is bound to be either noteworthy or notorious, and either way it meets WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. There are sources out there, as indicated, making this a notable project. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 17 October 2011 (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.