Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaza 440


 * 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 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Plaza 440

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

Non-notable building. Ghits appear to be mainly advertisements. McWomble (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Near a lot of notable places, but nothing said to establish much beyond its location that establishes notability for the building itself. - Mgm|(talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - about as notable as my house. Graham Colm Talk 14:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Delete Literally only as notable as my house. An entire article for a housing complex?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)


 * Keep There are a fair bit of news articles discussing this place out there, requiring only a simply google news search. WP:N is satisfied by these. AFD isn't for cleaning up articles. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've rewritten the article somewhat to be less promotional and added good references. While it's still only a stub (and judging by the entires in LexisNexis it'll remain that way for awhile), it's certainly not garbage anymore. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as consensus is that AFD is not for cleaning up articles this is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the Article is not likely to get much bigger, it does satisfy WP:V and have multiple WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My existence can be verified with reliable sources. Doesn't mean I should be included in WP.. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability here is completely and utterly nonexistent. Yanksox (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, one more jab at notability has been added to the article; apparently this building was the last such residential high-rise built in Chicago for several years. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, thus passing WP:N. These "non notable" comments don't seem to be based on our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A 50-story Condominium is large enough to be notable. That's why there are articles about it. I consider a least some of them considerably more substantial than just public relations. DGG (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Whilst visually notable, not wikipedia notable. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the references provided in Plaza_440 indicate sufficient coverage of this building in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 22:43, 13 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.