Talk:Bay Pointe

Notability
I've added a template because I think that the notability of this article is questionable following the cancellation of the tower. Bay Pointe is currently just a vacant lot. I wouldn't be against keeping the article if the proposed tower was architecturally significant or influential, but there's no evidence of that. Nor does there appear to have been notable public controversy surrounding it. We could have thousands of articles on planning proposals that were never actually built. Pondle (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from but strictly speaking this project still meets the general notability guidelines simply because of the media attention it got so I don't think the notability tag is applicable here, and I think WP:NTEMP may apply here. Trouble is, there's no specific guidelines for buildings (AFAIK all the proposals failed to reach consensus) and I don't know if there's any precedent for keeping/deleting this sort of article, so I'm going to raise this point over at WT:ARCH as I think that Wikiproject would know what to do with cancelled buildings here. Depending on their opinions, the next step would be to take this to AfD for a proper discussion. Bettia (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for raising it over at the project talkpage. I'll remove the notability tag but, as per the advice I'll also remove the article from Wikiproject Skyscrapers and Wikiproject Architecture.--Pondle (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete?
I propose a speedy delete with a redirect to Cardiff International Sports Village. This article serves very little purpose, as it was never built, and may never be built. If it becomes notable in the future, then the redirect can come off again. Seth Whales (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Bay Pointe is just an empty site at the moment.--Pondle (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support deletion, but not sure which speedy template would apply? May be easier just to go throygh AfD, or just create a redirect anyway without deletion. I don't think there'd be a problem with recreation of the article... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)