Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill Building


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Churchill Building

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non Notable Building Codf1977 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- The Building is notable- It Was Madison's first skyscraper Zonafan39 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not exactly a skyscraper - it is only 9 floors. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Skyscraper is an exceedingly loose term. The definition I'm most familiar with is that it's a steel framed building, not necessarily that it's very tall.  This building probably fits that definition, though the article's not terribly clear.  No comment on whether this building is notable. Buddy431 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While the building isn't a skyscraper in the modern sense, you have to remember this building was completed in 1915. Outside of New York and Chicago, buildings weren't that tall. One of America's first skyscrapers, the Wainwright Building was only ten floors. I just think since the building was a first for Madison, it is somewhat notable. Also, I'm not sure if this is on the National Register of Historic Places, but it should be because it is part of Madison's history.Zonafan39 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Madison's first skyscraper? That seems pretty obviously a notable part of Madison's history. It's a respectable stub; deleting it would be a terrible waste. - Draeco (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Draeco's rationale. It is now well referenced.  Royal broil  04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in agreement with Draeco-Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2010 (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.