Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Louisiana Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although it may be the second-tallest building in the city, no significant coverage of it was located on a search. I found some mentions in books, but nothing that goes into it in any substance aside from "it exists". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I had originally closed it as delete, but per 's request with potential sourcing on my Talk, willing to give it more time Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  13:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Louisiana. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Building that lacks any significant or Architectural notability or significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnotable building that has no historical or architectural significance. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Garuda3 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article currently has no sources, I found several using newspapers.com, such as:
 * Louisiana Tower sells for $12M
 * Another landmark building changes hands in Shreveport
 * LB & T dedicates Louisiana Tower
 * Louisiana Tower not part of Hibernia's package
 * Louisiana Tower up for sale
 * Santa Fe company buys Louisiana Tower for $16 million
 * Delete A 21 story office tower is nothing special, beyond the routine announcements above, no sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't have to be "special" for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:ROUTINE refers to events, I don't believe it applies to buildings. Garuda3 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no sources to explain why it isn't special either. No sources is no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, your comment wasn't about a lack of sourcing. There are clearly seven sources shared here so No sources is no sources. simply isn't the case. Garuda3 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment is that this isn't a tower on the National Register of Historic Places, it's a rather plain office tower; it has no outstanding architectural features or no ground-breaking construction techniques. The sources just talk about it being sold or rented out. There is nothing to differentiate this from any one of the hundreds of other office towers all over the country. No substantial sources beyond routine coverage. No sources is still no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete still no significant coverage in reliable sources shared; all above are short announcements in a local paper. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that these sources are all routine, short announcements ina local paper. All of them lack any regional, and state-wise significance. my delete vote remains unchanged. Paul H. (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:05, 20 November 2022 (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.