Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corus Quay


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Corus Quay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything particularly notable about a building. Not this one, anyway. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the building is the first part of a significant redevelopment of the Toronto East Bayfront neighbourhood. It represents both urban renewal and public money spent on corporate development. Notable issues include: the building (and site's) history, the controversy over the design process (and subsequent architectural faults) and whether it succeeds in spearheading further renewal of the area.  The latter point is particularly relevant given the building's interaction with the environment and prominent address on the waterfront.  The page is also part of WikiProject Toronto.  HBW 40 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2009
 * Keep and consider merging to company or redevelopment article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Many buildings are notable, but not this now-routine  green office building    DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No real notability established, especially out of the locality Corpx (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think that the building itself is not notable. It's a medium-rise office building, basically. If there is anything of value, such as the site history, etc., that could be included in a neighbourhood article for the area or in the Corus article as a redirect. Alaney2k (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is intended to be a signature project for Toronto's waterfront development. Not sure if it succeeded in this aim, but it is still worth an article. - SimonP (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although you wouldn't know it from the article, the building was hugely controversial, and the subject of much media attention, due to the public subsidies for its construction and the uninspiring design (this building was the first test of the City's new waterfront design review panel).  It is also the first waterfront revitalization project to move forward in Toronto.  This building easily meets notability standards, and the article can be improved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant additions have been made to express the controversial nature of the building's history and design evolution.


 * Keep. More information has been added to outline the significance of this building, its history, and associated controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBW 40 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are lots of buildings with some local controversy attached. Think of the 'Bohemian Embassy' development on Queen Street. That does not make the building notable. It's a local project, and not a large building, not architecturally significant. Outside of Toronto, I doubt anyone would think the controversy itself was notable. I think an article on the East Bayfront district would be more appropriate than Corus Quay. Gives undue weight to one single building, don't you think? East Bayfront is also where the city wants to tear down the Gardiner. Alaney2k (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're comparing apples and oranges. The Bohemian Embassy was involved in a fairly routine fight over height and density, which happens all the time, with a minor tempest in a teapot over the use of the name.  Clearly that's not particularly notable.  The issues with respect to Corus Quay are far more unique with much broader implications.  And the test for notability has never been what people outside a particular city would deem noteworthy -- otherwise, we'd be deleting the vast majority of building articles on Wikipedia. And I have no idea what you mean by undue weight - how does this article prejudice our ability to cover the take-down of the Gardiner or other waterfront issues? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With even more respect: :-) Maybe I am, but it has not been demonstrated in the content of the article that this building is "unique with much broader implications". I have no way of knowing if that is your POV or not. (Local governments involved - how would this be a precedent outside of Toronto? Toronto builds housing and has done so for quite a while. They built their city halls and other buildings.) If you want to back your contention, then add content and cites to the article. Then I would support 'keep.' Right now, it's just a building and your contention is not supported. I still think the East Bayfront is more notable than this one building. That is rebuilding a whole district, a district that has seen settlement since about 1800 or so. Corus Quay is a building on one corner. Somewhere under East Bayfront is the remains of the 'Rollo Boat.' Of course having the CQ article would not hamper coverage of the Gardiner. That's a non-issue. Alaney2k (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold that: Actually, I see that there has been a large addition to the article today. I'll read that. My objection might be covered. Alaney2k (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, after reading the additions, I concur with the keep. Alaney2k (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn, I'd just thought up a good response. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Save it for my next mistake. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep. The new details do more than an adequate job of satisfying the notability test. The page can still be improved but this one is a keep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.195.171 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (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.