Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marquis 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Marquis Tower

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Proposed project of fleeting notability Richard 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - an enterprising guy came up with a great idea, generated some local publicity but ultimately failed to get the financing and the project is dead for now. It never got past the architect's conceptual drawing.  This is just a pipe dream right now and a dead one at that.  It doesn't warrant an article or else we'll be having an article on every proposal that ever gets media attention.  --Richard 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with the nominator - if I read the article correctly this thing ain't even gonna be completed. Delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the nominator. The building is not going to be completed now, but the building did receive zoning approvals from the city and county government. And it did go quite past the architectual drawings and that is why I believed that this article warranted to be listed because it was very close to becoming an Indianapolis landmark here. Much like the Fordham Spire in Chicago prior to its becoming the Chicago Spire after new financing. Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so it went further than I thought. Nonetheless, this blog entry from the Indianapolis Business Journal suggests that the project is dead because "Jaron Garrett couldn’t raise enough money to exercise contracts on the run-down properties he had hoped to redevelop. His contracts have expired and the buildings are back on the market for sale."  The blog entry continues, "Garrett said today that he’s still interested in the site northwest of Washington and Pennsylvania streets, and he holds out hope he can find enough investor capital to build the proposed 25-story tower."  Well, you have to be an incurable optimist to be a real estate developer and Garrett fits the mold.  The question is whether Wikipedia should document such speculative and quixotic projects like this.  Or, as I would suggest, if Wikipedia should wait until projects are further along (e.g. actually have broken ground and started construction) before creating an article on it.  The obvious counter-argument to this would be projects such as the Rebuilding of the World Trade Center.  However, this project is not the World Trade Center site. --Richard 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This project, though proposed but not completed just like the The Grollo Tower or the 7 South Dearborn in Chicago or even the Tatlin Tower. This proposed project has architectural significance to the city of Indianapolis as it challanged many of the conservative structures that both stand today or have ever been proposed in a city which is greatly and nationally known for its conservatism. This is one of the first architectural designs of such complexity and contemporary thought ever presented and approved in our city.67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The 7 South Dearborn and Tatlin Tower articles suggest that it is legitimate to have articles on proposed but never constructed buildings. However, the question here is whether this proposed project is notable.  It had a fleeting notability within a limited geographical area (i.e. Indianapolis).  If you were to go to Chicago, would this project be notable there?  Was it reported on by any Chicago media outlets?  And that's just to determine regional notability.  At the end of the day, would anybody outside Indianapolis know The Marquis Tower from a hole in the ground? --Richard 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as a failed development project of only local interest it is not notable. Llajwa 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - Unless major improvements to the article are made. The effect it had on local government, law, and business can probably be pulled from reliable secondary sources like local newspapers - albeit "local", it will set precedence to future buildings in the same area. If the consensus of such hypothesis by local people can be verified, then I'd say keep it. -- Emana 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for unbuilt structures there needs to be a greater degree of notability than an announcement. --Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete Crystal Ball. jonathon 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pretty clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, likely to never even be completed. Doctorfluffy 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's not crystal if it's notable now.  An uncompleted plan is not inherently non-notable.  Also, the regional / global interest concern is misplaced.  We cover plenty of things that are of interest only for people interested in the subject matter.  Nobody is interested in all 2 million articles we have here.  Just follow the usual notability criteria.  This one looks marginal to me, could go either way.  Not enough sourcing yet, so if that's all there is it's non-notable.  Wikidemo 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up Comment Here's what I think the relevant section is from WP:N
 * Notability is not temporary
 * Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
 * Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
 * --Richard 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - for now - Nominating an Article on the same day as it is created leaves NO room for the article to improve. Sources are needed, but I am sure, we can assume good faith in that they will be forthcomming as soon as possible on this, quite possibly, encyclopedic topic. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the sentiment about "nominating articles on the same day as it is created". I had an article that I created nominated for deletion an hour after I created it so I understand your point.  However, the fact of the matter is that an AFD should focus not just on the current state of the article but its future potential as well.  In the case of this article, I believe it already contains just about all that can be written about the topic unless the project is resuscitated and goes forward.  As proof of this, consider that the article has improved very little since it was nominated 6 days ago.  More sources have been added but the real question is... does this topic have more than fleeting notability?
 * What does "quite possibly encyclopedic" mean? What makes it so?
 * --Richard 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A purposfully ambigious statement. Something along the lines of your nomination statement of 'fleeting notability'. (Notability is not temporary) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand "fleeting notability" and "notability is not temporary". WP:N asserts that WikiNews is a better location for topics which have short-term notability and that Wikipedia is for articles with "long-term notability".  This entire AFD discussion should be about whether or not the Marquis Tower has "long-term notability" or if its notability is "fleeting". --Richard 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2007 (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.