Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reserve Bank of Fiji Building

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve Bank of Fiji Building[edit]

According to the Suva article this is no longer the tallest building on the island (see here). I think that removes its only notable characteristic. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If that's its only notable characteristic, how about we write an article on the new tallest building? Royboy crashfan 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fourteen floors? Holiday Inns are taller than that. Aplomado - U T C 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub and can be expanded. I say give it some time.--Strothra 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the second most remarkable landmark - then it is good enough.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't sit back and watch Fiji get slammed once again. Let's give them some credit for building an even taller building than this. Not to mention that it is a major landmark in Suva. But beyond all that, if we get rid of this, do we then delete some of the buildings on our Tallest buildings in the United States article? Because we have an article on each and every one of the 50 buildings on the list and 49 of them are not the tallest. -- JJay 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you are so concerned about Fiji, would you consider expanding the article? The current stub text is essentially the same as when the article was created in 2004. --Ajdz 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes me wonder why you are participating here if you are not "concerned about Fiji"? Having said that, I added two lines of text to the article and some links. Now it's your turn. -- JJay 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and calm down. --Ajdz 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Enjoy the new article and I hope others pick up the gauntlet, perhaps expanding our coverage to the top-50 buildings in Fiji like in the US.-- JJay 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) I would agree with Strothra, if not for the fact that the article has existed since June 2004 (almost two years!) without any additional information being added. --Ajdz 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once an article is notable i don't think it can become unnotable. We are an encyclopedia NOT a newspaper. It was notable, therefore is notable. Mike _{(T C)} 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was at one time the tallest, that's good enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was at one time the tallest, so I say keep. It's still notable, but that's because it used to be the tallest building. Thing can rarely "lose" notability. Jesuschex 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhat notable - deleting it would be too drastic. Sheehan (Talk) 04:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay, Stothra, and Jesuschex. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is practically the same as it was when it was first created. If there was anything else notable to say about it when it was the largest building, I would have thought it would have already been written about, the page has looked the same since June 2004 as another user said. Radagast83 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article may be considered notable as it refers to thing that was once notable. Notability doesn't perish. There must be something about it more belonging to the period when it was tallest, the reasons why it was made, etc. However, as the article has remained unattended for so long, my guts aren't very sure whether it would turn out to be a worthwhile article. Obviously, what is written currently needs to be edited and corrected. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand if possible. Seems fairly notable. --David.Mestel 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. David Sneek 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If a subject was notable to begin with then it does not lose its notability over time. Ever heard of Historical Interest? Anyway, it should be given time to expand before passing judgments on notability.Loom91 09:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, isn't the second tallest building in Fiji notable? It definitely is. If that's the case, then we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong for deletion as they are not the tallest buildings in the country, per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the tallest building on Fiji doesn't seem to equate to notability and nor does being the former tallest building on Fiji. Being among the tallest buildings in the world at a particular time in history would be notable for me. MLA 09:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge, avoid cultural bias. That said, Terence, don't set up straw men like "we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong" because those buildings are notable in their own right aside from their height and you know it. That said, I don't see why there shouldn't be a Reserve Bank of Fiji article about the bank itself and then have the building entry merged into that. I may just decide to do that later, then we can all be happy. RasputinAXP c 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rasputin. That seems to me the most appropriate action here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rasputin, since both articles are very small -- Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aplomado. The tallest building in a nation (however tiny the building or the nation) is notable. A not-very-tall building in a not-very-large nation is not, ad hominem attacks on cultural and national bias notwithstanding. RGTraynor 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RasputinAXP. MikeBriggs 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (name didn't seem to stick)[reply]
Merge and add a photo. Whoever goes to Fiji in near future...--Ton e 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "what was once notable, is always notable" Jcuk 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It remains Fiji's first skyscraper. Hawkestone 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former tallest building in an independent nation with a population nearly a million? Seems plenty notable to me. Kestenbaum 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because Fiji is small doesn't mean their former-highest building isn't as important as those of any other country. I'm prepared to do some work on this in the next few days if it still needs it. In fact, take a look at Category:Oceania buildings and structures stubs and you'll see many other articles of even less notable buildings. Should we haul all of those in here too? PageantUpdater 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tallest buildings in Fiji are as relevant as the oldest houses in America. i.e. pretty insignificant on a global scale, but of some local interest. -- GWO
Merge with Reserve Bank of Fiji. Both the articles are short and would be more useful if merged. utcursch | talk 03:54, 13 April 2006 (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.