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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Condominio Residenza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Due diligence: Talk:Casa_Condominio_Residenza#research_for_notability --David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Content (size of building) and photograph in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is manmade, you can easily see it from my spacecraft where i am trapped with my computer stuck limiting me to a text interface where all i can do is edit in Wikipedia. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. --doncram 02:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size based on a photograph, that requires no WP:RS, not even WP:RS to establish the size you claim the photograph proves. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content on size of building I meant was the information in the article that the building has 46 floors and is 138 m (453 ft) tall. While the photo does also contribute to understanding that it is a significant feature, there is no question whether or not this is large. As pointed out by another editor on the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burano (building), another Toronto tall building, a major structure like this is also significant as a populated place - it has the equivalent population of a small town. --doncram 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of inhabitants does not establish notability. This building as only 440 units. A Boeing 747 can carry up to 600 passengers. Does that mean every 747 and perhaps every flight of a 747 is notable? Compare that with the smallest towns in a various U.S. states: Coolville, Ohio; Bombay_Beach, California; or Luckenbach, Texas. These small towns have history and character and hence WP:RS to make them notable. The inside of this 440 unit building most likely has the character of a non place ([1] [2]) with no history or anything notable worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. But if there is WP:RS about the building or some important event that took place there, etc., I will certainly reconsider, but I am not buying the argument that size and population make something notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In an AFD initiated over a nautical vessel someone made a similar argument to your 747 argument, comparing ships with modern military aircraft. They pointed out that modern military aircraft can cost more than freighters, tankers, even cruise ships, yet we don't have articles about each B52 or sr71.

  The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. A military pilot, whose plane is shot down, can hop into a replacement plane, and trust it will behave just like his original. Further planes fly in squadrons of identical planes, that all get assigned the same mission.

  There is of course a pair of 747s that do have their own article - the 747s that US Presidents use. That pair of 747s do have a standalone article.

  In the old Soviet Bloc there were huge housing estates, each identical to one another. Lots of buildings, are "one-offs", more like ships that 747s.

  Well, maybe the differences are all trivial? Sometimes they will be.

  So long as we are going to compare articles, across article type, what about highways, canals, nuclear plants? You may be suggesting that infrastructure, like ships, canals, highways, airports, can't be notable unless there has been a disaster, or something else that could be considered a notable event, happened there. Is that part of what you are trying to say? Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. Exactly. The long list of Template:Toronto_skyscrapers are mostly interchangeable and unnotable, being effectively non places as I said before. The exception is for buildings that have high quality independent WP:SECONDARY coverage that is not promotional. This article purported to be WP:RS for one of these buildings shows just how interchangeable these unnotable buildings are, making my argument for me. It might as well be a list on craigslist of available apartment rentals (e.g. [3]), where the only thing that distinguishes them is price, floor space, whether pets are allowed, etc. Do you consider that to be WP:RS of establishing notability too?

I'm not going to comment on the notability standards for infrastructure, which I have not encountered. If you want to do the research and show me what you have found, be my guest. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT this idea you seem to want to rely on, the "non place" ... Did you explain your thinking on this idea more fully on some other page? Can you point to an actual wikidocument that discusses this idea?

  I just clicked on it, and was very surprised you were directing me to a wikipedia article, not a wikidocument.

  So I looked at the bare-url links you put next your other link to non place. The first one seems to be a generic mystery novel, at least from the first page and a half, that happened to have a chapter heading "non places". Unless you tell us how this book is relevant to this discussion I hope it is okay with you if I don't bother reading more than the first page and a half.

  Your second link is to an abstract. It is an abstract of an article from the Journal of Urban Design. Did you, David Tornheim, actually read the original article, yourself? It seems to me, from the abstract, that the Journal published a philosophical op-ed kind of article, which, if you and I actually hunted it down, we would find would undermine the point you are trying to make, not support it, at all.

  Frankly I don't think offering these links, implying that others should follow them, to understand you more fully, was a good use of anyone's time, my time, your time, anyone's time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the wiki link to non place and the two others external links so you could understand what I meant when I used the term "non place". I suggest you read the first paragraph of non place. The first external link is to the book by Marc Augé in which he coined the term. That book is mentioned in the first paragraph, third sentence of non place. The cover page of the book, which shows up if you scroll to the very beginning of the PDF shows the image of people in a typical airport (that could be anywhere the world) giving a very good idea of what he means by a non place. I agree the early text looks like a novel, but it is just a very short story that used to introduce examples (like the airport picture) of what it is like to live in a bunch of non-places like the airport, the airplane, the ATM machine, chain stores, etc. It is a non-fiction book to talk about the concept and critical theory of non-places, which is directly related to architecture, such as the many buildings being constructed in downtown Toronto. I have it on my shelf because as I am very interested in architecture and what differentiates good work that that stimulates vitality and community from work that alienates humans from each other. The second link is to show that the term is relevant to architecture and urban design, being mentioned in a scholarly journal. I am amused that you assume that an article that takes seriously the concept of non place will somehow show that a building that looks like a hotel (which Augé identifies as a kind of non-place) is something other than a non-place. Well. I hope this makes more sense. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- as I wrote at another AFD nominator initiated, my own web search confirmed for me there that the due diligence they claimed they made fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: So we are supposed to just trust that there is high quality WP:RS out there that establishes notability that you found and if anyone asks about the source of notability, we'll just say, "Well, Geo Swan says it is notable and he found some RS, so therefore it must be notable."? Seriously? If you have WP:RS establishing notability, let's see it. Better yet, put it in the article too and then we can end this charade. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AI named Hal in my spaceship just chirped "Geo Swan" is right, and Hal promised to add to the article eventually, after he finsihes melting some asteroids. --doncram 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This building may be more notable in combination with the neighboring, related CASA 2 (aka CASA II) and the soon-to-be-completed CASA 3 (aka CASA III). Perhaps an article for all three buildings, although I'm not sure how that would be appropriately titled. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the three really are related (e.g. by common developer or owners, and/or by architecture), a combination article would be fine. It could be titled by listing them all, as in "Casa Condominio Residenza, Casa 2, and Casa 3" if no more compact term is found. If they were known in practice as "Casa Condominio Residenza Complex" that would be convenient, but I wouldn't coin such a term, i would only use it if it is actually used IRL. --doncram 03:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree with this is a good suggestion -- all three condos should be covered in a single article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this discussion, I'm saying keep in the expectation that we end up with one article for the three buildings. Combined, they are notable. Each one individually, maybe that is debatable. They do have the same developer (Cresford Developments), architect (architectsAlliance) and style, and are in reasonable proximity (33 Charles Street East, 42 Charles Street East, 50 Charles Street East, respectively). Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant content, resulting in a promotional article. The article contains copy such as:

• in November, 2005, the Casa was one of the three condos with the greatest units sold -- 81 units.[3] Residents took occupancy in October 2008.[4][5][6]

This is routine for any development. The sources do not establish a case for why this building needs an encyclopedia entry. The content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burano (building) closed "Keep", and this should too. I !voted "Keep" above. --doncram 22:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of Peter Clewes's reputation as a significant architect. Yes, it would be better if all three phases (or structures) appeared in the same article. --Lockley (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Towers of such scope have a significant impact on the local landscape and it's of no surprise Metro News described this tower as such. Along with this being the work of a notable architect and the independent coverage, it does pass the threshold of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.