Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WallStreet Tower Omaha

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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WallStreet Tower Omaha

WallStreet Tower Omaha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What part of the notability criteria do you feel this fails to meet? It has numerous mentions in media, including at least three TV spots; one on NBC [1] and two on ABC [2][3]. Kafziel ^Talk 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (I'm tempted to simply type "per WP:N") per Kafziel's findings. --Oakshade 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very promising stub, someone with a bit more knowledge i.e. someone from Omaha I guess, could turn this into a very interesting article. The building seems notable from the description of it in the article and that notability is confirmed by the sources referred to. I'm assuming good faith but it seems a strange nomination.Jules1975 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The reason I nominated it, is because I don't know of any other circumstances where we keep articles on condominium projects, and it may be a case of recentism, and thus not really notable per say. However, if the majority consesus thinks this news related article is worth keeping then that is fine. Just seems more like something that should belong in Wikinews than an encyclopedia. War wizard90 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as housing projects go, Co-op City comes to mind. Granted, that one is a bit more famous and established, but from that page's categories I see that there are actually quite a few other articles about buildings like this.

I don't really believe in recentism; a subject might seem trivial now, but someday it won't be "recent" anymore and maybe then someone will be glad we compiled this information while it was readily available. 50 years from now, kids might be doing class projects on this building. Who knows? As long as it has the sources to establish its notability (which this does), we can't be expected to predict how significant today's trivia will be in the future. Kafziel ^Talk 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is it currently under construction? Have they at least broken ground? If so, then keep since it documents a skyscraper under construction, and skyscrapers are notable. If they're just taking reservations or something, and there's still just a parking lot there, then it isn't a done deal yet. I was going to check out their official website, but the Flash animation took too long to load. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the multiple sources provided by User:Kafziel, which establish notability. -- Black Falcon 08:32, 7 March 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.