Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 West Ohio


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

101 West Ohio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A completely unremarkable office building. Even Skyscraperpage and Emporis have nothing much to say. I can't see any reliable news coverage online. Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is significant coverage here: Energy efficiency. That is an EPA site and has a large amount of information on the building. The tone is non-neutral (promotional) but the facts have been vetted by the EPA. Per this site the building won the TOBY award for its category from the Buildings Owners and Managers Association of Indianopolis. Looks like the sources the nominator mentions—Skyscraperpage and Emporis—are included widely in other articles about tall towers (granted that is a WP:OSE argument, but since the policy/guidelines pages do not explicitly mention buildings, that does work as a practical guide). The EPA coverage and the award, I think, convey enough non-temporary notability and coverage in reliable sources to warrant this being kept. Churn and change (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak delete - my issue with the source provided above is that it is basically self-published, though (as above) fact-checked for accuracy by the EPA. But fact-checking, in my opinion, doesn't get us past the notation at the bottom of the page which says, "Narrative information in this profile has been provided by West Ohio II LLC., or a representative of this facility. Other building information was verified and submitted to EPA at the time of application.". I think it's safe to assume it was submitted by the same people. So both the factual stuff and the prose stuff (accepted above as "promotional" in tone) came from the same source - the managers of the subject building. Just not sure that could be considered "independent", even when finally published by someone else. My other concern is that it really isn't notable for being anything other than a building - nothing significant happened there, there has been no particular controversy, there doesn't even seem to be a particularly interesting tenant in the building. While the building wouldn't necessarily inherit notability from those things, I can't see how notability could be asserted beyond information which would put it squarely within the confines of WP:NOTDIR. There is nothing to make me think this building is any more notable than the hundreds of other buildings in the same city which makes me inclined to cite Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The EPA is effectively a secondary source since the agency vets the information and decides what to publish; it is their job. The EPA vetting is just like editorial oversight or peer review. Secondary sources often obtain information directly from subjects; that doesn't make them unreliable. Also Skyscraperpage and Emporis do have some things to say, and those seemingly are considered reliable sources for similar articles. There is also the award. As to tenants, as is to be expected of a skyscraper, there clearly exist notable tenants (try a Google search), however that is not relevant to the building's notability. Churn and change (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see where you're coming from on the EPA one but I'm still not convinced that simply fact-checking a company fact sheet for inaccuracies is the same as developing editorial content independent of the subject which is what we tend to expect from other "news media" sources. On the other two - one is a not-particularly-substantive data-sheet style entry for the subject, the other (though it provides more 'data') is basically a fleshed-out version of the same. Neither provides "significant coverage" in the same sense as an article about the subject and in both cases, I don't think they particularly confer notability or distinguish the building as more or less notable than any of the myriad other buildings which also have entries. I don't think they really confer notability for the same reason as the yellow pages wouldn't - there's nothing inferred about the notability of the subject from having an entry. They are both good for verifying information in the article, but I can't see how they could be considered "significant coverage" for the purposes of WP:GNG. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The sourcing that can be found is thin, although I'm open to changing my vote if convincingly significant coverage can be uncovered. The page on the EPA website does not amount to significant independent coverage, in my view, because it was largely provided by the owners of the building in question. The EPA may be a reliable source, but it must also be independent of the subject, which is not wholly the case here. The award the building won is not significant coverage; it's merely a listing of an award it won. It fails WP:GNG on these bases. The spirit of notability is that reliable sources have independently decided to take note of something because they think it's worth noting. The award may indicate this to a degree, but the EPA coverage certainly does not, in my view. It is on a website that catalogs all buildings meeting its certifications, and thus the EPA was effectively required to "take note" of it instead of deciding on its own that it was notable. --Batard0 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.