Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Pointe 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

South Pointe Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There's lots of coverage of this development in journals such as Architecture, Architectural Record and Progressive Architecture because it was quite intrusive and the work of a controversial developer, Thomas Kramer. There are lots of plans to build giant towers in my own neighbourhood now and they certainly cause a stir.  See books such as Fool's Paradise for a general history.  Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed I did the original tagging for notability and sources. Couldn't this information be in South Beach before it gets separated as its own article? I'm surprised there's not a separate section about the architecture along with the history. I have been noticing several articles for Florida skyscrapers can be one-two sentence stubs. I know stubs are cheap but still... – The Grid  ( talk )  16:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Per nom. Not opposed to a Redirect if material is added to the parent article (but there's nothing to merge, as there's no sourced content). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know where this "lots of coverage" is, I couldn't find any. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:48, 12 September 2020 (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.