Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbour Plaza

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. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Plaza

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Building is not notable. While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings. Not discussed in any major way for its architecture or any notable characteristic. Does not pass WP:NBUILD Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. I've added three references. Sources such as [1] in Toronto Star and [2] in The Globe and Mail establish notability. Also, the comment "While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings." downplays its exceptional height IMO. The development is the eights tallest building in Toronto. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These mentions in the Star and Globe are simply routine mentions of new projects in the city. The bigger topic is really that downtown has expanded south. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references do not pass muster IMO, and I can't find any other decent ones. BlogTO is a content aggregator service that posts native ads all the time. The article in the Star is tagged as "special to the Star", which usually indicates non-independent coverage—and, in line with that, the article only interviews people affiliated with Menkes Developments, which built Harbour Plaza. The press release in Canada Newswire is a press release. Urban Toronto is a trade blog with no editorial standards I'm aware of. I cannot evaluate the Globe & Mail or Metro articles because I can't access them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail article was accessible to me if I turned my JavaScript off. I included a link to its Wikipedia article as it appears to be a reliable, independent source. NemesisAT (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Special to the Star" indicates that the article was written by a freelancer, but the same editorial standards that apply to staff-written articles apply to those by freelancers at the Star. BlogTO appears to be a reliable source with advertising and editorial clearly separated. It also responds quickly when I've told it about an error in an article. The Toronto edition of Metro has ceased publication, but I added an archived version of that page from Internet Archive. Yes, Canada Newswire is a press release distribution service like Business Wire or PR Newswire in the United States. Urban Toronto seems to be as reliable as any print publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the standard of Urban Toronto is not at issue. What is at issue is the notability of this tower. Since Urban Toronto writes about EVERY project in Toronto, a mention in UT does not make a project notable. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Alaney2k's comments. This fails WP:NBUILDING. After looking through List of tallest buildings in Toronto, buildings such as Commerce Court have received coverage that shows its apparent significance. The sources mentioned do not provide evidence that Harbor Plaza holds a historic, social, economic, or architectural significance. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Keep per NemesisAT. Although the sources do not pass WP:NBUILDING, they do pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A building does not have to hold such significance to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per NemesisAT.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see we have enough WP:RS for WP:N. The Plaza does not have to pass the SNG and GNG. Per WP:N It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passing WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2021 (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.