Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Square 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire Square Tower

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

Notability of this cancelled project is not established. A search on Google News reveals an article in The Australian (15 May 2008) about the cancellation but this on its own does not constitute "substantial coverage" as intended by WP:N. As the project was cancelled, there is no chance of further sources to demonstrate notability, the project was not unique for any particular reason or the centre of a political storm. Ash (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Discussed substantially in numerous sources . I don't think it has to be completed to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) You may find this search more accurate as your search was showing a large number of irrelevant stories (for example relating to the Times Square Tower in New York). Rather than being numerous, I make this 3 matches after 1990 with the terms "Empire Square Tower" and "Brisbane".—Ash (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those three stories seem to provide very substantial coverage over many months. There are additional sources that your search omits, for example this one and this one . And there are lots more. NOt every article calls it the "Empire Square Tower". ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus on whether to include projects that never happened? Given that this wasn't designed by a world-famous architect or the subject of a lot of independent news coverage, I would think its a clear candidate to be deleted. - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Certainly not being built is a hit to notability, but given the size and extensive coverage of the project it still seems very ntoable to me, and reports on its failure confirm that fact. If it was planned and then never build without any notice I think that would be different. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking through the handful of articles found via Google News to date does not address notability of the project. The press was either reproducing press releases in promotion of the project or discussing whether it would get cancelled or not. The building was not remarkable in design or concept, it won no awards for design and the project was not distinguished from many other such building proposals around the world that fail to be implemented. Wikipedia is not a memorial to failed projects.—Ash (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Numerous articles go into detail about the very large scale project and its costs. It hasn't been built, but even its failure has been widely covered because it was such a notable project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:56, 20 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.