Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formica 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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Formica Building

 * – ( View AfD View log )

unremarkable building. Zero hits on Google News, 3440 on internet. The building is not exceptional high or special. Night of the Big Wind talk  20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Why would a building built in 1970 turn up on Google News? Ghits on architecture subjects are not a useful guide. Sourcing for work of this era would all be in print. Works by notable architects like Harry Weese are normally considered notable; this work was executed when Weese was at the peak of his career. Covered in Architecture in Cincinnati, an unusual example of an urban shopping arcade, part of the context of Weese's urban design aesthetic.   Acroterion   (talk)   15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a small but essential change in my rationale: The building is not exceptional high or special. Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I could see there was a museum located in the building. It could have created some stories about the building when it was moving out. The building could have been some remarkable architectural features or be involved in spectacular incidents. But no trace of that. As far as I can find the building is just doing what it is supposed to do: standing strong. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable architect and this appears to pass WP:GNG with multiple sources giving significant coverage to it, generally for its design. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (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.