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 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Towers[edit]

Princess Towers (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)

Article about a housing cooperative, not well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. The only references here are an entry in the self-published "encyclopedia of our own history" of the university this was affiliated with, and a single newspaper article which I just searched for on ProQuest and found that it's a 200-word blurb -- which means that the substantive source isn't independent, and the independent source isn't substantive. Residential apartment buildings aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a number of local mentions in a before search. I'm not sure they add up to WP:GNG but since it is or was the tallest building in Kingston (Emporis lists it as fourth) there's a chance the article could be sourced adequately, so I'm going to abstain on voting. SportingFlyer talk 07:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while I did find a small smattering of purely local coverage in ProQuest beyond just the blurb that's been cited here, it definitely wasn't enough: it didn't expand beyond Kingston, it didn't support the addition of any genuine substance to this article beyond reverification of its existence, and it was vastly outnumbered by coverage of a different unrelated Princess Towers in a different Canadian city (and even combined, the two buildings still generated less than 60 hits total.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : As an unrepentant agoniste for veracity, I plunged into this quest unblemished by prejudice, yet Wikinotability was, alas, nowhere to be found. Subject seems to fail the criteria for the notability of buildings, first of all: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We're certainly missing those.

Secondly, if there was verifiable evidence of lasting or historical notability of the subject's social importance, as a co-op, sources would have similarly been identified. Weak asides only have.

Essaying to locate encyclopaedic interest beyond merely the notability requirements fails on verifiability's strict regime, again: We need independent sources and we do not have them. This article is built on sand. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2018 (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.