Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zions Bank Idaho Headquarters


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Zions Bank Idaho Headquarters

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I have tried to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for this building, but have been unable to do so. There are a few passing stories, but it does not appear to be generally notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This one might be worth some consideration.  The new Zions Bank building is part of a longer story, of some considerable significance to Boise, relating to a long-abandoned project that came to be known as the "Boise Hole".  As explained in numerous news stories, e.g., a historic (NRHP-registered) building called the Eastman Building burned down in 1987, soon after it had been "saved" from demolition as part of a large urban renewal project.  Later it was then slated for a new building, to be the tallest in the state, but the project fell through and lay fallow for many years. Some information about the Boise Hole is already contained at List of tallest buildings in Boise, and I find numerous news articles about it over the years.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting backstory, Arxiloxos. Sounds like there may be enough material for an article on the Boise Hole and then this material could be included there if there is enough sourcing found. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including coverage outside of the Boise area in Spokane's Spokesman-Review:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  Week Keep Delete. In its favor: there have been several news stories about the proposed building. Against: they're all local coverage, which doesn't necessarily mean sufficient notability (note: while the The Spokesman-Review is located in Spokane, Washington, much of the newspaper's readership base is in Idaho—in that region, 285 miles (as the crow flies) just makes Spokane the next big town over [see 1, 2]). Also, according to the building's brochure (page 7), construction isn't even set to begin until Winter 2013, making much of what's there WP:CRYSTAL. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete per User:Northamerica1000,, "the topic of the article isn't congruent with having a high level of internal links to it. If unremoved, the orphan tag would likely stay on the article for years." Currently, no articles link to this one; if no articles are likely to ever link to it, it shouldn't be part of the encyclopedia. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is now linked from List of tallest buildings in Boise (where this project was already mentioned). Other incoming links could be added (such as Zions Bank).  Orphanage concern solved. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is also now linked to Zions Bank. There are now two links that lead to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the The Spokesman-Review is based in Spokane, Washington, a different state, and hence is a source that qualifies as regional coverage/statewide coverage in another state. The notion that there are readers of the newspaper in Boise doesn't disqualify the source as local coverage, because it just isn't. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I note the  comment, "if no articles are likely to ever link to it, it shouldn't be part of the encyclopedia." is not a deletion criterion. It's an absurd criterion, we're a collection of articles, not a collection of links. WP is not a link directory.  We try to avoid orphans, but it's not a requirement. Anyway, it's unlikely: there's at least the company, the city, the architect, probably the contractor. Sufficient notability & references. Local coverage is relevant for local events and institutions, but I don't see how it makes sense for buildings. It's where you would expect to find sources.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Calling the Spokesman-Review local news for Boise is a stretch. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources establishing notability. DGG's comments are spot on as an article being an orphan is not at all a reason for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2012 (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.