Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/55 Public Square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, so keep. Thanks/wangi 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 55 Public Square

Non-notable building, no references, non-encyclopedic Akradecki 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Tell me why it's notable, otherwise delete. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I actually worked in that building years ago...and I barely remember it, because it really ISN'T notable. -Markeer 01:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a skyscraper of Cleveland, it has some notability. It also is located in the heart of the city, public square. 11kowrom 01:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Do you mean that because it is in Cleveland, a city of less than 500,000, is a skyscraper, and is located near the heart of the city, it is notable? What if the building was the seventeenth tallest, and near the heart of Hyderabad, with 6.1 million people? I highly doubt that anyone would claim notability just because of this. Picaroon9288 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Listed as the 17th tallest building in Cleveland by Emporis. Needs to be expanded, but it's notable. I fixed the Emporis link on the article. --Húsönd 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed my stance to Strong keep per EurekaLott.--Húsönd 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cleveland is currently the 39th most populous city in the US and your argument for notability is because it is the 17th tallest building in Cleveland. Some quick work with a calculator tells me that this argument just claimed notability for 663 random buildings in America (the 17 tallest in the top 39 cities). Most of these buildings, like this one, have no architectural or historical significance, they just happen to be built a bit taller than some other office buildings. -Markeer 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN building. 17th biggest in the city? Is that supposed to make it notable? TJ Spyke 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. And being the seventeenth tallest building in the city is utterly unrelated to being encyclopedically notable. Picaroon9288 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable by being the 17th tallest building. Possible redirect to Public Square. T REXspeak 04:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment about the 17th I would like to call to your attention that Cleveland is a city with high-rise buildings, and a 17th tallest building there is a landmark that would stand out in the vast majority of the cities in this world. When I came up with this 17th tallest building argument it was not my intention to assert the notability on the grounds of that particular number but in the fact that it's a big building in a city with big buildings.--Húsönd 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
When I was there in July, only the Terminal Tower and Key Tower were the buildings that were most noticeable. 55 Public Square is 300 ft, 91m, so I'm not sure how many cities have buildings that tall, probably a lot. T REXspeak 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Although my stance is keep, I am also concerned that it lacks prominence in Cleveland. It's good that people who've seen the building are providing input.--Húsönd 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask my grandmother, she worked in Cleveland when there weren't as many skyscrapers and she might know if it is notable or not. T REXspeak 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "17th tallest building in Cleveland" rivals yesterday's "Alexa rank less than 500,000" in the self-defeating-notability-argument competition. Opabinia regalis 04:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you read my comment above?--Húsönd 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
"It's a big building in a city with big buildings" sounds like an argument for deletion to me. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you could assign yourself for a fun spree of deletions regarding New York City buildings. :-) --Húsönd 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I take that back. No point in adding sarcasm to a serious discussion.--Húsönd 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a deletionist, I admit it :) Although buildings aren't the worst of the things we have unnecessary articles on. Opabinia regalis 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claims to notability. --Improv 07:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Apart from being the site of the Arc Lamp, which is claimed to be the first electric streetlight in the world, do you mean? Uncle G 09:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment now this is actually a half-decent argument for notability but before I'd change my vote I'd want an argument why the first streetlight makes the building notable as opposed to it making the city of Cleveland notable (since streetlights are located, er, on the street). If McGinney's questions below regarding architectural uniqueness (or at least interest) could arrive at a real answer, I'd consider changing my vote based on that + it having first streetlight in front of it, but I think it NEEDS an argument for architectural or historical interest on it's own, not just because of what's on the sidewalk outside. -Markeer 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Strong Keep and expand (See Eurekalott below) I'll deal with the objections in turn -
1. Non-notable building,
Firstly it can be seen in an architectural context of skyscraper building being built in the same year as the Seagram building. "The Seagram building (and virtually all large buildings of the time) was built of a steel frame" - this building is notable at least because according to emporis "The first 10 floors are framed in steel, the upper 12 floors are reinforced concrete." - I wonder why? (Fire code for the bottom floors? Structural rationale? Environmental control? Impact upon the urban environment - were old street patterns destroyed by the building) - What place does this building play in the developing work of Carson Lundin & Shaw's architecture - this article has interesting questions that could be addressed - It's just the article isn't doing it yet.
2. No references,
The emporis site is cited
3. Non-encyclopedic
There's plenty of buildings in the encyclopedia - so the principle of having this skyscraper in the encyclopedia presumably isn't the issue - The 1 sentence entry is, I suspect the source of the objection - I suggest we keep this AfD open and review in a week by which time hopefully the author will have expanded it. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see no reason to keep this. Punkmorten 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: so far, the only additional information that I could find about it is that it was "One of the first International Style high-rises in Cleveland" [1] and that it has the number 55 printed on it (this could be the reason why it is referred by its address and not by its name). However, given that there is some information in the article, I'd rather support a merge than a deletion. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

**I'd support this - particularly a creation of Carson Lundin & Shaw and then a merge of 55 Public Square into it and then 2 New York Plaza, Trust Company of Georgia Building, 4 New York Plaza, Citibank Building, Swan Street Building, Time Warner Building can all be accomodated under the one article.--Mcginnly | Natter 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (see eurekalott below)

****Ah! apologies I thought Public Square was Public square - Maybe we should move Public Square to Public Square (Cleveland) to save similar confusions? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

          • There is no other article in the Wikipedia for the other squares with this name at the moment [2]. But yes, it is a little confusing, so a move could make sense. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and I also like Markeer's rationale. -- Kicking222 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I created the article, and i've already voted keep. I'm not going to change my vote. However, it seems a good idea if in the Public Square article there could be a list of buildings located in it, one of those being 55 public square. 11kowrom 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps a major expansion and some notability beyond being the 17th tallest building in America's 39th most populous city would convince to vote keep (the replica street lamp doesn't do that), but my intuition tells me that other than a list of tenants which would be spammy, we've got just about all the decent information on the building. Cool3 15:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Has no encyclopedic value whatsoever; I don't care if it's the 17th tallest building in Cleveland.UberCryxic 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this doesn't sound like a notable building. JIP | Talk 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a significant place in Cleveland, so merge with Cleveland, Ohio. JYolkowski // talk 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, Public Square might be a better choice of merge target. JYolkowski // talk 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The statistics for the building are misleading. When it was built in 1958, Cleveland was the 7th largest city in the U.S. In addition, 55 public square was the third tallest building in Cleveland when it was built. Hence, notability comes from its history. Lorty 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Public Square, duh. --- RockMFR 17:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Public Square. I'd say 500 ft is the cutoff for any building being included on the basis of its height, becuase that's what the World Almanac uses. Zagalejo 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what possible encyclopedic value does this article have? "17th tallest building in Cleveland"?? is that suppose to suggest notability? Wikipediarules2221 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Public Square. Not notable enough for its own article. Jcam 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand (it's only two days old, after all, and could be architecturally notable, like Lorty and Mcginnly have said,) or else Merge with Public Square or Downtown Cleveland. Confiteordeo 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Public Square. Actually I think 11kowrom's idea of listing the buildings of the plaza could work. Chipka 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Public Square. Were I more cynical, I'd suggest deleting Cleveland, Ohio as a nn city. Stev0 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How is Cleveland non notable? 69.40.244.34 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable example of an early International style skyscraper. I've rewritten the article to better reflect its notability. Here's some of what Eric Johannesen had to say about the building in his Cleveland Architecture 1876-1976 (the local architecture bible):
“ As the city's first downtown office building in twenty-five years, its first modern glass-sheathed tower, and its first tall reinforced concrete frame structure, the Illuminating Building was of more than passing interest in the Cleveland of the 1950s. ”
- EurekaLott 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is still short, but not unreasonably so. It can still be merged, but now it also makes sense to leave it alone. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps more history of the building could be added. Rhino131 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Public Square, a few of the tibits are worth keeping but there is no need for a whole article on this subject. Eluchil404 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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.