Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McBrien Building


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

William McBrien Building

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable building (built for a non-notable purpose...) designed by an architect who has an article here (Charles B. Dolphin) but appears himself to be hardly notable at all. No references prove notability, and the Google hits are negligible--including Google Book hits. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No possible notability. There will always be real estate notices for any commercial building, but few of them will actually be notable . Not worth redirecting to the architect, as it's not a significant work.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane 2007  talk 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I am tempted to argue that a building described as a "'Stygian hellhole' with some employees working in spaces akin to 'veal crates.'" must be notable, I am forced to concede that this is just unusually colorful local coverage, and that this particular hellhole does not quite rise to the level of notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Gets coverage in works like The TTC Story and there seem to be plenty of alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Serving as the head office of a notable government agency is not a claim of notability that hands a building an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, if reliable source coverage about the building is lacking. But there's only one reliable source here that's about the building — the other reliable source is about a tangential plan to move to another building while not really talking about this building at all, and the only other source here is a primary one — and one source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can pony up much better sourcing than has been shown here, but nothing present in the article as written is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a historic and significant structure in the city. A Google search on the term can yield credible information, which can be used to expand the article. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2016 (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.