Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1600 Broadway

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 per added sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1600 Broadway[edit]

The 25th tallest building in Denver. No indication of why being the 25th tallest building in a randomly chosen town is in any way important. Sources are the usual two directories, and this is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- No indication of why this building (which actually comes in at #27) is in any way notable. It's a poorly sourced stub. However, all the other buildings on the list have articles, so if anyone is able to turn this into an encyclopedia article I'd be willing to review my opinion. Reyk _YO! 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I am not sure what you consider to be "an encyclopedia article," but I made a few changes to the article. You may want to review it again. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with 1000 Connecticut Avenue (discussed below), creating an article just to keep a list all-blue is not only a bad reason, it's also circular reasoning. It starts with deciding that the top 40 buildings in a particular city are all entitled to their own separate article, then defends that idea with the concept that a Top 40 shouldn't have redlinks and bluelinks. If it's not notable beyond being among the 30 tallest buildings in "_____City, USA", it's not notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is sourced and now (after a few changes that I made) is a little more well written than before. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Edison (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Leitmanp's additions, which show that this is properly called the Colorado State Bank building. The Colorado State Bank doesn't have its own article, but it's part of the BOK Financial Corporation. I still don't think the building itself is notable, but the link could direct to an article about the bank. 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep per article improvements. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 03:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements.Huang7776 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements. rootology (T) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above Alaskan assassin (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCALFAME. Run-of-the-mill building. Article has references verifying the accuracy of the stated facts, but such can probably be found on any building you wish. And every building has some ranking in a city, whether it be the 9th tallest or 287th tallest. Article does not state what really what makes it unique or encyclopedic at a global or even a local point-of-view.
Weak Keep Sources provided establish notability. Article should be expanded with more details and sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (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.