Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concord Center


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Concord Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An ordinary office building of modest size, not historic, not on any register, with WP:MILL issues. Sources are routine coverage in a local business journal and some typical city council meetings involved with construction permits. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is properly sourced and contains relevant information as well as historical information. There are many articles on buildings similar to this one that have similar sources. I see no reason this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhamAla (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition to the sources already in the article, here are two more:   There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Concord Center to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That the sources are local sources does not matter for Notability. The encyclopedia does not benefit from deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on a topic that passes Notability. At most, it should be merged/edirected to Harbert Management Corporation, but I'd prefer keeping since a merge would be unable to retain all of the information currently in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm glad to see some participation here. But according to WP:GNG: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. And according to WP:GEOFEAT,  Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. A mention in the local newspaper every 5 years is not significant coverage. The fact that we've been given a short piece in a local paper about what used to be on that lot before Concord Center was built is telling-the site is more interesting than the building. The fact that we are presented a mention in a local blog about a new sign being hung on the building as a sign of notability is telling. There's nothing interesting or notable about this office building. WP:MILL. Geogene (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete local notability only. "Deals of the century" in one city--and reading the article indicate the headline is wildly exaggerated for an 11 story office building.  DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 02:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Antigng (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep – Normally I !vote to keep buildings tall enough to have a page on Emporis, but for this one the information was sketchy. No data at the architects' website, just a short description and images. No coverage that I could find in architecture magazines. So in itself I don't think the building is notable enough. Nor can a building be notable because of the tenants or articles about the local real-estate market. The two possibly notable features are that the Birmingham Business Journal article was a detailed 4-page profile of the architects, with a good deal of information about the building, and the fact that the pyramids echo the old courthouse. There is an image of the old courthouse on Commons, (here). That was a historic building. If images could be added with information about that building and the history of the site, I think that might make the article as a whole notable enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:20, 7 March 2015 (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.