Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMO Tower


 * 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. North America1000 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BMO Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep What sort of WP:BEFORE searches are you doing? This building easily passes WP:GNG through a newspapers.com search, which has archives of the Arizona Republic stretching back decades. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Many sources found, the article needs better referencing. This is one example on its construction (when it was known as the Dial Tower). MB 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the newspapers.com source above, as well as others, do show good coverage. Article does need improving, though, of course Spiderone  08:08, 23 November 2020 (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.