Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 South Tryon

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. This is not a resounding consensus but Gaknowitall's argument is not policy based and Doncram's argument is effectively rebutted by NYA. As this is a close call I'm happy to reconsider on request. A Train^talk 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

300 South Tryon[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Only claims to significance are that, if completed according to plan, (i) it will be the eighth tallest building in Charlotte, North Carolina and (ii) it will be the first tall building in Charlotte to have been constructed since 2012. This is not the "significance" contemplated by WP:GEOFEAT. Also, sources in the article are local, except when they are primary. Web searches show the same -- now that the building is nearing completion, there is some "buzz" about it in the Charlotte news sources, but nothing beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article says that the building is under construction, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems to me that it would make more sense if we waited until the construction of this building is finished before deciding whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wp:GNG. Develop using sources available to expand the article to cover more about it. There are a couple Charlotte Observer articles about it. I don't understand the dismissal of sources as either being local so invalid (why? the Charlotte Observer is a valid source like the New York Times and both write about local matters) or being primary (it is appropriate and good to use primary sources). Also the building is under construction and sources exist and it is not a matter of speculation about whether some film might be created or not. --do ncr am 18:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Don, I tend to not badger people who offer opinions different than mine. But you did form part of your comment as a question, so I'll answer here. The concern about purely-local coverage comes from WP:AUD. And that provision of the guideline makes a lot of sense, especially in the instant context. Is there any new office building anywhere in the world that hasn't received local press coverage of its planning and construction? And their opening ceremonies? And maybe the moving-in of their first tenants? If we accept the existence of local coverage as a good reason to ignore WP:GEOFEAT's call for "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", we are going to end up as a directory of virtually every office building in the world. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just another 25 story office tower. It is not noteworthy even in Charlotte other than the fact that it was the first office tower built in 7 years. It is covered by two typical groundbreaking articles and two announcing the construction. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are an infinite number of "non-notable" buildings with Wikipedia articles about them all over the world. This one is no different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Notability IS always required. Please sign your comments.--Rpclod (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider redirecting/merging to Charlotte, North Carolina or somewhere else
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. A natural redirect target would be List of tallest buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina, where it appears in an "under construction" list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:20, 12 August 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.