Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers

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. Mailer Diablo 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity Towers

This place is just an apartment building, one of thousands found throughout the world. There is nothing about the history or construction of the buildling that sets it apart in any way. Only 43 google hits, and most of those are obituaries of people who lived there or companies who worked on the building. Indrian 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it may be an apartment building, it is windsor's second-tallest building. If this tower's deleted, you should consider deleting many buildings in New York City, particularly the apartment towers near Battery Park. Let's not also forget all hotels... User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, delete. If notability of the building is established as it possibly might be based on Raccoon Fox's argument, my position would change. Erechtheus 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Windsor's second tallest building seems like a small claim of notability at best. There must not be many tall buildings in Windsor, as 26 stories isn't that tall. Wickethewok 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, i'm only concerned because this article is less than 6h old. And the tallest building is only 33 storeys tall....then it's the Royal Windsor Terrace Apartments and Solidarity Towers (tied at 26). i put it in here becuase it's a very popular building in windsor, and is very notable, at least on the local level..... It's notable because it employed MANY people during one of windsor's worst economic crises, and the union helped gather people to construct the apartments. And to Indrian, i didn't mean to attack you. if it seemed i did, i apologize. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 26-story building is not notable for its height even if it's built in an area without any tall buildings. I don't see much of an argument that it's notable for anything other than its height, either. Geoffrey Spear 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, i'm confused as to why this is being nominated for deletion, while Royal Windsor Terrace isn't. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is silly to nominate two nearly identical articles without knowing the will of the community. If this one is deleted, I plan to nominate the other one; if this one is not deleted, nominating the other would be pointless. Indrian 20:26, 2 August 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.