Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Post 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Market Post Tower

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

office building known among Silicon Valley networking geeks but fails WP:N & WP:RS, article remains orphan after 2-1/2 years. Ikluft (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (from nominator) I understand that Silicon Valley networking geeks (including me) see significance to this place. But it doesn't fit the WP:RS or WP:N requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia.  There are search hits and its own web page, but no reliable sources specifically about this topic.  And there's really no expectation that there will be.  Ikluft (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   —Ikluft (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:N and is the subject of WP:RS. In slightly less Wiki-lingo, it is the in-depth subject of independent reliable sources such as the San Jose Mercury News, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.  And according the the Australian newspaper The Age, it houses the "world's best known Internet centre point, MAE West."  --Oakshade (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources about the Market Post Tower, not that just mention it in passing, then go ahead and add them to the article. Without that, it fails WP:RS & WP:N and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  I tried but didn't find anything acceptable.  Its existence is certainly not controversial.  But truth isn't enough to be listed - see WP:TRUE. Ikluft (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't notice, but the San Jose Mercury News article listed above entitled "CITY'S HOT NEW BUILDING GLASS REFLECTS HEAT AND LIGHT, STIRS DISPUTE" is about this building and goes far beyond the scope of "passing mention".  --Oakshade (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I noticed. I just don't think that a handful of newsbank hits from the 1980's are significant sources.  That's really old info.  We already knew the building exists. This article needs to meet the WP:CORP requirement of significant reliable sources because it's about a business organization.  Please don't take it personally - I just don't think the sources exist to satisfy that requirement.  We'll see if other editors find that convincing at all. Ikluft (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all Notability is not temporary. It doesn't matter if there are many reliable sources about this topic from the 1980s. It wouldn't matter if most of the sources came from the 1880s, it's still notable.  Besides passing WP:CORP (it's the in-depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources), a topic can considered notable if it passes only WP:NOTABILITY and not any of the "sub" guidelines like WP:CORP.  --Oakshade (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Buildings are not organizations (neither are cars nor sandwiches). They are just material objects; some aspire to be art, some not. NVO (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In a sense, this building is an organization. That's why I think it's notable. It's an important part of CGW's telecom infrastructure business. It's value as such is why they bought it. As a simple building, it's profoundly un-notable, unless you consider tacky overuse of gold film to be notable! Isaac R (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also under its common name Gold Building, it has many more articles about it. --Oakshade (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Ikluft (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The AfD has promoted some development of the article. I want to reiterate to the folks who are adding to it not to take this AfD personally.  If you want to save the article, improving it is certainly the right way to go about it.  I need to point out though that the 1980s newsbank links and an Australian article which mentions but is not specifically about the tower are probably too weak to keep it afloat - I'm not convinced to change any positions stated here before the recent additions to the page.  If I had found better sources, I would have added them rather than doing the AfD nom.  So good luck. Ikluft (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ikluft, your desire to delete this article is appearing a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. First you demanded that there be sources about the Market Post Tower.  After they were provided, now you complain that they're "1980s newsbank links" as if that somehow negates the core passing criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.  As your position keeps changing, it's becoming impossible to respond to you.  If you want to change the guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY to not allow topics to be notable if many of the sources about them are from the 1980s or you want to do away with theNotability is not temporary clause, you need to make your case at the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, not try to push your agenda in a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, let's not get into personal stuff. I think Ikluft's arguments are decently thought out, even though I don't agree with them (and he wants to delete my article!). Isaac R (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, let's not get personal.  The refs that were added are too weak for WP:RS.  An effort to save the article would need to find better sources.  I think they don't exist.  It definitely isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I have plenty of friends with connections to the place.  It just doesn't have what it takes to be listed by WP rules... unless better sources turn up. Ikluft (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are "too weak"? Sorry, but articles that are about this building are in-depth which is the primary indicator of WP:NOTABILITY, a guideline which you seem to keep ignoring.  If the coverage simply mentioned this topic "in passing" you would have a point, but of course the scope of the coverage is far beyond the scope of "in passing.   From WP:NOTABILTY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  This topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Again, you need to try to change WP:NOTABILITY if you don't like the inclusion guidelines.  Trying to change WP:NOTABILITY in an AfD is simply wasting time.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "significant" in there should be taken seriously. The new refs are all 1980s clips (not even a whole article because newsbank only reveals some words) and an Australian article which is not about the tower.  If these are all the refs that will be added, that supports the AfD nom and won't convince me. The argument would have to sway other editors.  Preferably it should be as nice and polite as possible since AfD is a discussion that should win over other editors to consensus.  (It is not a vote.)  In order to sway me away from the AfD, it would need significant sources, which the current ones are not. Ikluft (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "Significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.. The sources address the subject directly in detail.  "Trivial" is defined by WP:N as "a directory listing" or "passing mention."  The sources are very far beyond the scope of either.  In regards to the 1980s, you seem to be under the very strange impression that sources from the 1980s are not considered reliable sources.  If you don't think so, so be it, but WP:NOTABILITY makes no such age discrimination.  See WP:Notability is not temporary from WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only advice that needs to be given right now is to find better sources. Yes, I think the references so far are indeed trivial.  Early financial difficulties are trivial.  Statues in the lobby are trivial.  The only ref that mentions its use as a peering point isn't about the building.  So far they all count for zero in the AfD.  You'll impress no one by attacking others.  Stop complaining and find some adequate references. I'd call it a good outcome whether the article is improved enough to survive the AfD, or is deleted for not being up to minimum standards.  But an inadequate article and personal attacks add up to the worst outcome - please take a more productive and positive approach. Ikluft (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trivial" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "directory listing" or "passing mention".  Articles which you admit are about early financial difficulties are not directory listings or passing mentions.  If you wish to change what is considered trivial in WP:NOTABILITY you need to make your case on that page's talk page, not claim sources found on an individual article are trivial which is purely your opinion but opposite of reality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   —Ikluft (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Disclosure: original creator of article, though I haven't edited it in a long time.) This building is notable for one single reason: it's a small but significant part of the U.S. telecom infrastructure. The way it evolved into that role after being designed as a mixed retail-office venue is of interest, as is its role as part of the Carlyle Groups larger telecom enterprises. Isaac R (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements to the article which clearly demonstrate notability. —BradV  17:02, 2 December 2008 (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.