410:
one is a not-particularly-substantive data-sheet style entry for the subject, the other (though it provides more 'data') is basically a fleshed-out version of the same. Neither provides "significant coverage" in the same sense as an article about the subject and in both cases, I don't think they particularly confer notability or distinguish the building as more or less notable than any of the myriad other buildings which also have entries. I don't think they really confer notability for the same reason as the yellow pages wouldn't - there's nothing inferred about the notability of the subject from having an entry. They are both good for verifying information in the article, but I can't see how they could be considered "significant coverage" for the purposes of
361:. I think it's safe to assume it was submitted by the same people. So both the factual stuff and the prose stuff (accepted above as "promotional" in tone) came from the same source - the managers of the subject building. Just not sure that could be considered "independent", even when finally published by someone else. My other concern is that it really isn't notable for being anything other than a building - nothing significant happened there, there has been no particular controversy, there doesn't even seem to be a particularly interesting tenant in the building. While the building wouldn't necessarily
440:: The sourcing that can be found is thin, although I'm open to changing my vote if convincingly significant coverage can be uncovered. The page on the EPA website does not amount to significant independent coverage, in my view, because it was largely provided by the owners of the building in question. The EPA may be a reliable source, but it must also be independent of the subject, which is not wholly the case here. The award the building won is not significant coverage; it's merely a listing of an award it won. It fails
395:
Skyscraperpage and
Emporis do have some things to say, and those seemingly are considered reliable sources for similar articles. There is also the award. As to tenants, as is to be expected of a skyscraper, there clearly exist notable tenants (try a Google search), however that is not relevant to the building's notability.
409:
Yeah, I see where you're coming from on the EPA one but I'm still not convinced that simply fact-checking a company fact sheet for inaccuracies is the same as developing editorial content independent of the subject which is what we tend to expect from other "news media" sources. On the other two -
444:
on these bases. The spirit of notability is that reliable sources have independently decided to take note of something because they think it's worth noting. The award may indicate this to a degree, but the EPA coverage certainly does not, in my view. It is on a website that catalogs all buildings
394:
The EPA is effectively a secondary source since the agency vets the information and decides what to publish; it is their job. The EPA vetting is just like editorial oversight or peer review. Secondary sources often obtain information directly from subjects; that doesn't make them unreliable. Also
228:
the building won the TOBY award for its category from the
Buildings Owners and Managers Association of Indianopolis. Looks like the sources the nominator mentions—Skyscraperpage and Emporis—are included widely in other articles about tall towers (granted that is a
233:
argument, but since the policy/guidelines pages do not explicitly mention buildings, that does work as a practical guide). The EPA coverage and the award, I think, convey enough non-temporary notability and coverage in reliable sources to warrant this being kept.
357:- my issue with the source provided above is that it is basically self-published, though (as above) fact-checked for accuracy by the EPA. But fact-checking, in my opinion, doesn't get us past the notation at the bottom of the page which says,
165:
359:"Narrative information in this profile has been provided by West Ohio II LLC., or a representative of this facility. Other building information was verified and submitted to EPA at the time of application."
272:
118:
252:
159:
224:. That is an EPA site and has a large amount of information on the building. The tone is non-neutral (promotional) but the facts have been vetted by the EPA. Per
196:
A completely unremarkable office building. Even
Skyscraperpage and Emporis have nothing much to say. I can't see any reliable news coverage online. Does not meet
369:. There is nothing to make me think this building is any more notable than the hundreds of other buildings in the same city which makes me inclined to cite
125:
370:
445:
meeting its certifications, and thus the EPA was effectively required to "take note" of it instead of deciding on its own that it was notable. --
365:
notability from those things, I can't see how notability could be asserted beyond information which would put it squarely within the confines of
221:
17:
91:
86:
95:
78:
180:
147:
473:
40:
400:
239:
141:
454:
426:
404:
385:
345:
314:
284:
264:
243:
209:
137:
60:
469:
423:
396:
382:
310:
235:
82:
36:
341:
187:
362:
173:
74:
66:
366:
326:
295:
450:
280:
260:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
468:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
415:
374:
306:
441:
411:
230:
197:
153:
337:
205:
225:
446:
276:
256:
54:
112:
201:
329:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
298:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
462:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
108:
104:
100:
172:
336:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
305:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
273:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
476:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
271:Note: This debate has been included in the
253:list of Indiana-related deletion discussions
251:Note: This debate has been included in the
270:
250:
371:Knowledge (XXG):Existence ≠ Notability
220:. There is significant coverage here:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
244:20:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
210:20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
455:15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
427:03:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
405:02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
386:02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
346:20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
61:15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
315:22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
285:20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
265:20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
493:
465:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:The result was
348:
317:
287:
267:
222:Energy efficiency
484:
467:
420:
397:Churn and change
379:
335:
331:
304:
300:
236:Churn and change
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
492:
491:
487:
486:
485:
483:
482:
481:
480:
474:deletion review
463:
418:
377:
324:
293:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
490:
488:
479:
478:
458:
457:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
389:
388:
351:
350:
349:
333:
332:
321:
320:
319:
318:
302:
301:
290:
289:
288:
268:
248:
247:
246:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
489:
477:
475:
471:
466:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
436:
435:
428:
425:
422:
421:
413:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
381:
380:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
334:
330:
328:
323:
322:
316:
312:
308:
303:
299:
297:
292:
291:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
227:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:101 West Ohio
72:
71:
68:
67:101 West Ohio
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
464:
461:
437:
416:
375:
358:
354:
325:
294:
217:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
355:Weak delete
307:Mark Arsten
160:free images
338:Tom Morris
200:criteria.
470:talk page
367:WP:NOTDIR
277:• Gene93k
257:• Gene93k
226:this site
37:talk page
472:or in a
417:Stalwart
376:Stalwart
327:Relisted
296:Relisted
119:View log
39:or in a
447:Batard0
363:inherit
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
442:WP:GNG
438:Delete
424:(talk)
412:WP:GNG
383:(talk)
231:WP:OSE
198:WP:GNG
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
202:Sionk
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
451:talk
401:talk
342:talk
311:talk
281:talk
261:talk
240:talk
218:Keep
206:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
419:111
378:111
188:TWL
117:– (
453:)
414:.
403:)
373:.
344:)
313:)
283:)
275:.
263:)
255:.
242:)
208:)
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
449:(
399:(
340:(
309:(
279:(
259:(
238:(
204:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.