Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens Building (Eugene, Oregon)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citizens Building (Eugene, Oregon)[edit]
- Citizens Building (Eugene, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Building appears to be non-notable. A Google search failed to provide significant coverage in non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. I don't want to appear unkind to Eugene which is, I'm sure, a town with real civic pride and offering much to its citizens. But this appears to be a 10 storey office building from the later part of the 20th century. That's it. Outside Eugene, that would not be remarkable, and even Eugene, it seems, boasts something taller. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG. There is simply not enough coverage in reliable sources. --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trust me, this building has never been a source of civic pride. Citing Style & Vernacular: A Guide to the Architecture of Lane County, Oregon, which contains one paragraph on the building, the only thing I can find of interest is that the ground floor was designed by the S.F. office of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. If someone could find something about the law that I believe limits buildings to 10 stories (because of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace another structure of dubious notability), that might be worthy of adding to the Eugene, Oregon article, but that doesn't mean this building itself is notable for being the tallest post-statute structure. Valfontis (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the Eugenius-affected folks (Jsayre, Valfontis) say it isn't notable, I believe them. tedder (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this building has been the subject of a few articles in news archives. Adding sources to article now riffic (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The information added does nothing to address the notability issues. Not sure what to say about it being a "landmark". That sentence in the 2006 article looks like filler--just a fancy way of saying what year it was built. Valfontis (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our place to determine intent of the writer's decision to call it a landmark. verifiability, not truth. riffic (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additions. They appear to be run of the mill coverage about occupancy rates from the local paper. The possibility of a claim to fame is being an incredibly ugly building Eugene. I can't find any depth of coverage outside of Eugene, such as The Oregonian. In my mind, the building benefits from the local paper being online and searchable, nothing else. tedder (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the spirit of the notability guidelines is that there should be something beyond 'everybody in town knows the building' to qualify. That might get it mentioned in the local press and a town guide, but it doesn't explain why it should be encyclopedic. The problem is that it looks so ordinary - I'm fascinated that only the ground floor was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; I'm guessing that means only the interior layout, which may not even exist today. Now if it had been designed as a single storey, and another nine had been planted on top, that really would be notable. --AJHingston (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify that it was the ground floor banking space that was designed by SOM, and it was said to be "especially worth seeing" in 1983 when the book was written. The space was occupied by the locally owned Citizens Bank, which I'm not sure has survived the banking crisis. I think there was a really large macrame/fiber art hanging in the lobby. And yes, the layout has probably changed. Valfontis (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once notable, always notable. So that might be enough, if the sources will support it. I'm trying hard to be fair to Eugene here - living in an historic and world famous European city, it's difficult for me to work out what the appropriate criteria might be.--AJHingston (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify that it was the ground floor banking space that was designed by SOM, and it was said to be "especially worth seeing" in 1983 when the book was written. The space was occupied by the locally owned Citizens Bank, which I'm not sure has survived the banking crisis. I think there was a really large macrame/fiber art hanging in the lobby. And yes, the layout has probably changed. Valfontis (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the spirit of the notability guidelines is that there should be something beyond 'everybody in town knows the building' to qualify. That might get it mentioned in the local press and a town guide, but it doesn't explain why it should be encyclopedic. The problem is that it looks so ordinary - I'm fascinated that only the ground floor was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; I'm guessing that means only the interior layout, which may not even exist today. Now if it had been designed as a single storey, and another nine had been planted on top, that really would be notable. --AJHingston (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additions. They appear to be run of the mill coverage about occupancy rates from the local paper. The possibility of a claim to fame is being an incredibly ugly building Eugene. I can't find any depth of coverage outside of Eugene, such as The Oregonian. In my mind, the building benefits from the local paper being online and searchable, nothing else. tedder (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I don't think a 1970s lobby design necessarily confers notability, especially from a book written by the same architects whose work is being boosted within it. And as a Eugene native, I see absolutely no reason to have to be fair to Eugene (though that's awfully nice of you), numerous articles (including one now cited in the Wikipedia article) talk about Eugene's "butt ugly" architecture. Many things about Eugene are quite laughable. Some folks pride themselves on it... Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I live just down the road in Corvallis, Oregon. While we may be collegiate rivals, I won't let the fact that UO is laughable as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nike interfere in my judgment here... This is not a notable building in that there are no "high rises" in Eugene. The second tallest building in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho or Billings, Montana or Fargo, North Dakota wouldn't be notable either. There are notable buildings in Eugene, the subjects of multiple instances of independent coverage. This is not one of them, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 1 May 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.