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. Sandstein 18:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Brisas condominium[edit]

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

Non-notable condominium in Ottawa. Other than local coverage about a single incident with a resident, searches on Google, News, Newspapers and JSTOR revealed nothing significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Open-and-shut case of an article about a subject that's not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about a single resident, it is about a condominium building which faced a special assessment of $65,000 per owner in ~~January 2014~~ 2013:

the old board was ousted by the condominium’s owners and new board members elected. The owners revolted because the old board did not consult with them before agreeing to go ahead with the $15.3-million overhaul — which will cost each owner between $40,000 and $65,000, depending on the size of their units.. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) +addition on 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) +16:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still doesn't make it notable. Except perhaps to the residents of the condominium. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment Is this your personal opinion or can you substantiate it by pointing to precise established policy? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite to what Ottawahitech thinks this is not a newspaper. News paper articles are BARELY reliable sources nevermind the fact that not every event needs to be documented here! This is not archive.org or LexusNexus this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Stop with this nonsense! Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic Comment It seems user:mrfrobinson has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. See for example;
  - Delete vote in another condo related AFD (COA Ontario)

more of the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The proper forum for making such an allegation is ANI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Ottawahitech, but this is just one random condo building out of a hundred thousand in Canada. The fact that its residents were given a rather large special assessment does not make it notable. Just a local interest news story. Reso lute 14:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The cash call is WP:NOTNEWS and does not make the condo notable. Hwy43 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the closing editor I don’t like to monopolize the discussion here, however it is not clear to me how one is supposed to address a proposed deletion of an article that one spent a fair bit of time researching. Yes the article does not show the results of this research, yet. However, it was my understanding that as long as the topic is wp:notable there is no deadline?

This nomination continues to baffle me. It stated that it was “local coverage about a single incident with a resident” which is clearlly not the case. When I questioned this statement the (flipant?) answer was "still doesn't make it notable." with a suggestion that an article supported by references from the Ottawa Citizen is only of "local" interest. When I questioned the nominator again I received no answer.

In my effort to not to clutter this page with offtopic comments, I tried to move these comments to the talkpage, but it appears few are interested as there have been only 17 views of it. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per more than one section of WP:NOT in general and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in particular. MarnetteD|Talk 15:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please see question on talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2015 (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.