Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Brickell City Centre

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. Ged UK 13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Brickell City Centre[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went into this expecting to fire a full spread of sources aimed for a "Keep", but instead found nothing but blogs, "New Times" stuff (that I recall being rubbished at RSN in the past), and one thing from BizJournals that may be reliable but isn't enough. I'd be willing to reverse my !vote if someone more caffinated can dig up stuff though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I carried out a in-depth search and found no reliable coverage from independent sources. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the following sources:

Swire unveils new 80-story tower for 700 Brickell site. Miami Herald.
Arquitectonica-designed tower planned at 700 Brickell. South Florida Business Journal.
Swire releases new rendering for Brickell City Centre. South Florida Business Journal.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources that proves this proposal isn't fake.

[1]. "Emporis".
[2] "OceanFront Reality".

--Trulystand700 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources identified above, but (at least for now) I actually might think the better course would be a merge with the Brickell City Centre article that covers the entire project, including this proposed part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 22 November 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) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this proposal goes ahead, it will be significant and might be controversial. If it is stopped before it is built, then some time in the future this article might be suitable for deletion. But, in the meantime, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Merging with the Brickell City Centre article is also a possibility.Squareanimal (talk) 10:35, 29 November 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.