Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Tower (Tampa)

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trump Tower (Tampa)

Trump Tower (Tampa) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Donald Trump has withdrawn his name, and it does not appear likely that the tower will be built.("Trump pulls out of plans for high-rise in Tampa". Orlando Sentinel. May 31, 2007) If something is built on the site, it will be under a different name, and an article can be started for that building, if it is sufficiently notable and sourced. Donald Albury 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. That very article about the project's supposed end implies notability. The legal dispute between Trump and the developer may persist as an interesting current event, and this defunct project's notability may endure. I know that is all uncertain, but I'd rather err on the side of keep for now.--Absurdist 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is it about the project's ending that makes it notable?. -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact that there is an article, which you cited, from a reliable third-party source. This is a notable current event, involving a notable person.--Absurdist 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the nominator makes the case for notability with a cite. The fact that Trump pulled out makes it more notable, not less. Dhaluza 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How does that make it notable? I don't see a rash of commentary being published on the significance of Trump withdrawing his name from the project. This incident might be worth a mention in Trump's article, but where is the evidence that it is notable enough for its own article. -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't need a "rash" of commentary, multiple independent sources are sufficient for Notability. 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable failed projects are encyclopediac articles--Sefringle^Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's failed, but what makes it notable? -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The building has not been torn down and may yet be completed. It is notable as a large skyscraper under construction (BTW should be added to Category:Buildings under construction. Trump's envolvment makes it even more notable IMO. --Targeman 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have yet to see any source stating that construction has proceeded beyond drilling for pilings. The project ran into problems with soil stability, which apparently led to the problems with financing. -- Donald Albury 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's interesting. Notable even.--Absurdist 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is notable and cited --UntilMoraleImproves 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I had deleted this article as an expired PROD, but restored it after User:TonyTheTiger showed me this link, a later news article (June 12) that says the project is still on.--ragesoss 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball... tower isnt built, tower may never be completed... til it is, why do we have an article about a failed construction job?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable failures are still notable. Andre (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete If it hasn't been completed, then it fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. —« ANIMUM » 05:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL does not apply here. This article isn't, and shouldn't become, speculative. It is about the Trump Tower project in Tampa that exists, or did exist. The article is backed up with reliable third-party sources.--Absurdist 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It should be obvious, but WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. No one is speculating anything about these towers. Failed projects can be notable, like this one is. Burntsauce 17:47, 20 July 2007 (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.