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. Project has been cancelled, and is non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Stacy Condo Tower[edit]

Contested prod, likely by sockpuppet. (I hadn't seen the contested prod when I prodded it; my prod was removed by a sock who templated me).

Anyhow, enough context. Focusing on the content. This is a non-notable proposed building (wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Delete without prejudice, it can be recreated if sources are established (or it breaks ground). tedder (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this proposed project is notable. JJL (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The project seems to have generated some reliable source coverage (see [1]) although it is unclear to me how much of the coverage is for this project and how much is for other projects by the same developer. CRYSTAL doesn't really apply to major building projects, although I'm not sure if this qualifies. (As an aside, the PROD was originally removed by the article's creator so the original de-PROD wasn't a sock, although the guy that warned you most likely was). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod thing isn't really a big issue, just including for context. My understanding, and it's probably wrong, is that CRYSTAL applies for any sort of "vaporware", including buildings that haven't broken ground. In other words, it hasn't happened. Naturally, I can't find anything to back this up (or to show me that I'm wrong).

My own personal "yardstick" is "would this still be notable if it never actually happened?" For things such as movies and music CDs the answer to this question is almost always "no," but for something like a 800ft tall building the answer is "maybe". Thus I wouldn't use CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion in cases like this, but rather decide based on the amount of coverage the project has received. In this particular case, I am unsure whether it has enough coverage and thus am neutral on the deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the project has been canceled: [2]. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cancelled, proposed apartment building, non-notable, one of tens or hundreds of thousands cancelled in the world-wide real estate bubble bust. Drawn Some (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unfinished, and not enough coverage to justify its existence. At best, a minor note in the developer's article, except they apparently aren't even notable enough to have one either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but a lack of an article doesn't indicate lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was being mildly facetious :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may as well cancel the Article, like the project was. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:34, 4 July 2009 (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.