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. postdlf (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trans National Place[edit]

Trans National Place (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 per WP:N I have found no reliable sources in the last year that have shown that this project is still active, including the page presented in the last AfD discussion which dates to 2012. Wikipedia is not a place for everything that has or could have existed. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Delete There are some secondary sources but I don't think they rise to the level of "significant coverage" described in WP:GNG.-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The nomination is way offbase. There is absolutely nothing in WP:N which suggests that sources need to be recently published, or that building projects need to be active, in order to meet the GNG's requirements. Just the sources listed in the article are significant ones -- to the Boston Globe, Business Week and the Boston Herald -- and nothing more taxing than clicking the "news" search button on this AfD turns up articles in the New York Times, Boston Business Journal, the Associated Press. A casual glance at these articles demonstrate that they discuss the subject in "significant detail," as opposed to a sentence or two. Would the nom care to proffer a valid reason to delete? In place of his final sentence for which there isn't an actual guideline, I'll tender one that does: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Ravenswing 11:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference from Business Week has since been removed, two or three local sources does not equal "significant coverage". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. YOU removed the link to the Business Week reference, and it's highly improper to remove references and then claim the article's under-referenced. (By the way, I found the new location for that reference, through the amazingly difficult trick of Googling the article's name; elapsed time, about four seconds.)

      That being said, this [1] is the link to the Boston Business Journal article. This [2] is the link to the Associated Press article featured on Fox News. This [3] is the link to the New York Times article on the project. This [4] is the link to the Washington Times article citing the project. This [5] is the link to the Boston Magazine article concerning the subject. Here's [6] the several pages concerning the subject that one published book, cited on Google Books, has on the subject. Here's [7] the USA Today article on the subject.

      These are not petty, fly-by-night sources. These are major media outlets with national reach, and they don't mention the subject in a drive-by sentence or two, but for pages on end. This ought to be a slam dunk, and I'm befuddled at the heel-digging I'm seeing. Ravenswing 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the creator of the original article. The project was cancelled years ago, so the building was never more than a drawing. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would you care to proffer a valid reason to delete? Ravenswing 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The building never existed. As a proposed building, it was notable for the liklihood of existing eventually. As a cancelled project with no associated scandals or other items it does not warrant an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building got a splash in the news and then was cancelled. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for your premise, there is no qualification -- none whatsoever -- in either WP:N or WP:GNG for an otherwise notable subject failing under either guideline just because it was never constructed or doesn't exist; hence my asking for a valid reason to delete. The GNG holds "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There are, in fact, many such articles, enough so that there are several categories for unbuilt structures: [8] Of course, if either of you can find any guideline that explicitly debars a cancelled building project from having a Wikipedia article, feel free to link to that guideline. Ravenswing 02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a ton of attitude. I'll give you that. But this project lacks not for for such... spunk. You indeed seek to have no friends -- none whatsoever -- And that you would burn your bridges over a building never built strikes me as odd. Nonetheless, I give you your fake building, and say unto thee, make of thus what you will. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Regardless of whether or not the building will ever be built, this was a major project in Boston that attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:N: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Projects do not have to be completed or active to meet WP:N - consider the Chicago Spire, for example. Cheers, Rai•me 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:OTHERSTUFF, the Chicago Spire had a groundbreaking and the construction process had gone ahead when it was cancelled. The Trans-National place was nothing more than an idea that got news coverage. "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it's erroneous to state that high-rise projects are only notable if they are either completed or still active. It hardly matters whether or not a groundbreaking was held - the Trans National Place project clearly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as evidenced by Ravenswing above, and thus meets the general notability guideline. Cheers, Rai•me 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Raime. Notability is not temporary. Also a Google search for Boston Piano Tower yields multiple in-depth hits from sources like The New York Time, AFX News, TIME Magazine and Business Week. The project's intent to replace an architecturally significant building by Paul Rudolph got plenty of attention. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 12. Snotbot  t • c »  20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of sources, and I fundamentally disagree that things must have existed to be notable. That argument (specifically with regard to planned works and buildings) has been raised and dismissed before. Consensus has been that planned projects (even if later canceled) can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. This one does, I think. Stalwart111 23:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Building doesn't have to be finished to be notable. Notability is not temporary. The project was very notable as is evidenced by all the links to major media sources that Ravenswing provides. I might rename the page to something like Trans National Place project to make it seem less like an existing building, but I wouldn't delete it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (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.