Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L Tower

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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L Tower

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Only one independent WP:RS talk about it. That's not enough. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this building received an Emporis Skyscraper Award (2016, 8th place) but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's surprising a skycraper in Toronto of this height is AfD'd. Easily found significant coverage from the National Post, Bloomberg News, CBC News and UrbanToronto [1][2][3][4]. The National Post refers to this building as "iconic" (link already above) and the Toronto Star refers to it as a "landmark."[5] Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't performed as all of these sources were found in less than 5 seconds. --Oakshade (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a before. The results were about as unimpressive as the WP:RS at the time of filing. Google search on "L Tower". The new RS is a little better, but seems more interested in the crane on the building than the building itself.

There are no guidelines I am aware of that tall buildings have individual wikipedia articles. That fact seems to be lost on the editors who have created so many articles from the List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto that have terrible WP:RS. If you want those articles to survive, I suggest adding real WP:RS to them.

That said, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article and find much better WP:RS. If other editors agree that the new WP:RS is good enough for notability, I might change my vote. But the article must reflect what is in the WP:RS, not some puff piece for the building, and for better or worse the crane appears to be one of the most notable things about the building based on the RS I reviewed. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The finding of "unimpressive" sources contradicts the opening "Only one independent WP:RS talk about it" sentence. Sorry I'm not buying WP:BEFORE was preformed. The sources later found go much more in-depth with some adding the crane aspect as only a component of their coverage, especially the CBC News one.[6] --Oakshade (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one in the article. Anyway, based on your good work on sourcing and the feedback from Bearcat, I'm changing to keep. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A building of this height in Toronto is notable. Satisfies GNG. I am happy with the sources provided by Oakshade, and the others available: [7] [8] [9] etc. James500 (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Please cite some policy or guideline that gives notability to buildings of a certain height. I know of none and would oppose such a guideline as contrary to our general WP:GNG rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:IAR. It allows us to make exceptions to guidelines. Some of the exceptions to GNG have been codified into SNGs, such as GEOLAND, others have yet to be codified. James500 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Buildings are not handed an automatic free notability pass, in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing, just because they happen to surpass a certain arbitrary height — so the building's height is irrelevant to whether it should be kept or not. The clincher here is Oakshade's efforts to improve the sourcing, not anything inherent to the building, and I can attest that additional sources also exist to improve it further: why, for instance, does this article say nothing about the crane, citing sources like this and this and this and this? This is definitely notable, but it's the improved sources that clinch its notability and not just its height per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. All the coverage about the crane doesn't really feel that "deep" and noteworthy, but does count and with the other sources I think it barely crosses the GNG threshold. MB 02:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Buildings should be handed an automatic free notability pass, if they happen to surpass a certain arbitrary height, at least because that means they can be an item in a list of tallest buildings, and at worst their article can be redirected to that item. Apparently, per other editors, there are adequate sources for this to meet wp:GNG though. --Doncram (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.S. This is one of the tallest buildings in the nation, i.e. it is included in List of tallest buildings in Canada, and it is more than 200 meters tall. I think the minimum cutoff for automatic notability of any building should be 100 meters. --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat and Oakshade; enough sources have been provided. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'll also note that the condo board running the tower was involved in arguably the largest condo fraud scheme in Canadian history. [10] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:33, 18 September 2018 (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.