Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candela Hotel & Residences

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) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candela Hotel & Residences

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

Fails notability criteria for buildings (WP:GEOFEAT). Is a canceled project of no particular established importance. References limited to three primary sources and one self-published source (blog post). Ibadibam (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no particular evidence of notability. Two of the three references identified above as "primary sources" are self-published by entities associated with the project. --Srleffler (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NTEMP. This has actually received ongoing significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon the availability of sources, and not based upon whether or not those sources are present in articles. Articles:

The Seattle Times
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Puget Sound Business Journal
The Stranger

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources. We should get them into the article asap. I'm still a little skeptical, though, that this establishes "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" per WP:GEOFEAT. Looks like fairly ordinary local coverage of a major construction project. Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. As Notheramerica1000 has noted, notability does not expire. The planned building was widely covered very substantially and was of architectural significance even though it is not expected to be completed as originally planned. The evolving development plan continues to be in the news and the history of its evolving design is well worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what the architectural significance is? I note that the Stranger piece mentions some elements, but comparing it to the articles in Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in the United States, it doesn't seem to be nearly as significant. Yes, notability doesn't expire; I'm just on the fence as to whether the project was ever notable to begin with. As to the new plan, which is indeed receiving local coverage, it doesn't seem to be in scope for this article, which as it stands is about the canceled Candela tower. Perhaps we should revise this article to cover the new project instead, with a section on the canceled project? If the new project doesn't reach the 400ft cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Seattle, is it otherwise significant enough to establish notability? Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs updating. As the building is constructed it will certainly evolve. Given the location, the prior plans for a major skyskraper and hotel, the design with a thinner midsection (the architecture design history should be expanded, it wld be nice to get a better idea or even an image of what was planned, the size of the building, the history of the housing bubble bursting and the toll it took on the project, and the redworked project cumulatively add up to a very notable project that's been covered quite substantially. This is a major city, so when you say "local coverage" let's remember that if it was a planned skyskraper in NYC there would be little or no dispute over its notability. I would be surprised to find any major building project in NY that lacks an article. This would have been one of the tallest buildings in Seattle and from what I've sseen it's still a major development project that is receiving substantial coverage and will continue to receive more. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What trips me up is the WikiProject Skyscrapers guideline that says, "Every existing skyscraper should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the majority of skyscrapers, high-rises, and towers are not notable enough to require their own pages." Under those guidelines, the original, 410-foot project would have made the List of tallest buildings in Seattle cutoff of 400ft and thus been notable. But because Candela has been canceled, it doesn't go on the list and so the Skyscrapers guidelines (which are entirely height-based) don't appear to apply. (Interestingly, the New York list cuts off at 600ft, so this project wouldn't have qualified for height-based notability had it been in New York.) Even so, I think the combination of its planned height and moderate architectural novelty may be enough to keep it, though I'd like to hear from somebody at the Architecture or Skyscrapers wikiprojects who has experience reviewing these types of articles.

As to the current project, I'll restate because I didn't put it well the first time around. The article we're discussing is not about the building being planned at this location. This article is about the building that was canceled, and we're debating its deletion strictly on the merits of the canceled project's notability. The new building is a separate topic that should be mentioned in this article, but this article probably shouldn't be changed to be about the new building. I think that can get its own article should it be notable enough (which at this point, it doesn't appear to be). Ibadibam (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided by Northamerica1000 are more than adequate to pass our guidelines, particularly WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Umm...the building was never built. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT; no secondary, independent RS. Miniapolis 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for joining the discussion, Miniapolis. Your arguments have been addressed above to some extent. See Northamerica1000's comment for a few reliable secondary sources. I believe we're also in agreement that WP:NTEMP applies here: notability can't be revoked because it wasn't built. The article isn't about a building anyway; it's about a plan. The question is, was it a notable plan? The deletionist in me says no, but we may have sources per GNG that make it a borderline yes. Ibadibam (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Because the sources are there. Note that Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures and Category:Proposed buildings and structures contain dozens of articles, not to mention Category:Fictional buildings and structures. The sources are what make it notable, whether it exists or not. WP:GEOFEAT should be updated to reflect that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 7 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and Northamerica1000. I personally worked on the article about that medal they were going to give to drone pilots in America that was news back in February but got canceled. Just because they never made any doesn't stop the topic from being notable, or in my case, even a GA. Dea db eef 08:19, 8 August 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.