Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald Investment Center


 * 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 no consensus. --Core desat  03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

McDonald Investment Center


A non-notable building in Cleveland, Ohio. Not even one of the taller buildings, as it is 16th in the city. Cheesechunky 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable building. Interesting though.  Mildly interesting.   Dooms  Day34  9  03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. Unless some more information is given about it sometime soon. Being 16th tallest in a city of only 470 000 people isn't a good claim to fame. Black-Velvet 06:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A shame we feel we must delete interesting stubs, and keep pages for obscure albums because of some non binding guidelines.Obina 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable building. As the nom mentioned, the building isn't even the tallest in the city.-- TBC Φ  talk?  03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN building.-- Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. When it was built it was one of the tallest buildings in Cleveland, 5th to be exact. If Wikipedia was around in the 60's when it was built, the building would have been notable, so it should still be notable now. 11kowrom 04:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 05:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. But when it was built it was the 5th tallest building in a city of 870,000 people. Quite a difference there. Lorty 14:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I guess you're right. The article has expanded suitably. Has Cleveland really depopulated that much? Jeez. Black-Velvet  05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. In Fact, Cleveland was at one time over 900,000 people. 11kowrom 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless article is expanded. It's not that a big city, so not all the top 20 tallest buildings in the city are notable. --Ter e nce Ong (C 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. For bordering on an 'no content whatsoever'.  Spinach Dip 10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as for its height, it is notable for its location (9th and Superior) and for the companies in it today such a Tishman Speyer and Cantor Seinuk. This stub seems the sort that, if expanded, makes Wikipedia so good.  I admit its not the Empire State Building, but the article will be more helpful and encyclopedic than that for a back up goalie of a third division football team.Obina 12:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please look again. I have expanded a bit.  A page like this which mentions a few small companies, some history, and some location, seems helpful.  As you can see, it can direct one to a number of directions, and in fact prevents future AFD discussions on these small companies needing their own page.Obina 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Obina and 11kowrom. Lorty 14:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any history included in the article which is pretty essential for notability since it's not otherwise notable. This is a start for 'building notability' standards: User:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings Antonrojo 15:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not American; but surely Cleveland, Ohio is not so important that its 16th tallest building, or even its 5th, gains notability thereby without any other assertion therof?--Anthony.bradbury 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article can be cleaned up to provide useful information. --Falcorian (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - No claim to notability given.   --Nehwyn 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important placemark. Westenra 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles for deletion/1717 East Ninth Building focused on a similar building, also in Cleveland. It was kept, so why shouldn't this? 11kowrom 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. None of the participants in that AFD actually cited policy, myself included.  GRBerry 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i was unaware of that. But 1717 East Ninth Building did have an AFD debate, and it was deemed notable. 55 public square also had a AFD debate, and that passed as well. All are Cleveland buildings.


 * Keep per Obina Rhino131 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly would be notable enough for an encyclopedia of Cleveland, and the Cleveland area is plenty large enough to warrant decent local coverage.  Un  focused  06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete + comments: This is a dull article -- can anyone do something to make it a bit more compellling? A picture? Some history? I know it's not an encyclopedic objective, but interesting would be nice. Ideally, a list of Cleveland's notable buildings would be good. That way, buildings on the cusp like this one could go into a table with some stats until enough info is gathered to justify a separate article. In the meantime, I just don't think this article is quite notable enough. --A. B. 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In is normal to make a decision based on the topic being notable, rather than the article being notable as is, or being too dull. If we delete it in the mean time then there will be no stub to improve.  There are many stub pages on Wikipedia - but over time they get better.  Agree a picture will help - if I were not 6000 km away, I'd pop over and take one. If we keep this page, there is a much great chance someone will add a pic.Obina 19:40, 15 November 2006 (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.