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.
A Toronto construction project proposed but never built. Project has been cancelled and the development corporation is bankrupt. PKT(alk) 20:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are quite a few reliable sources there, but it's all old stuff from before the project was cancelled several years ago. Given that there's unlikely to be more on this, I'd lean delete, since the cancellation means that it's failing the test of notability over time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are recent sources in addition to the many older ones: Unbuilt Toronto 2[1], published in October 2011, has a chapter about Sapphire Tower and the also-unbuilt Wittington Place; this book (and the Sapphire Tower) is discussed in a November 10, 2011 Toronto Star article[2]. This mammoth project may have remained unbuilt but, it seems, it has some lasting impact, and the content is worth keeping.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "lasting impact" of a construction project that never got started is dubious. PKT(alk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it has a lasting lack of impact? :) --Lambiam 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I bumped into this discussion while looking unsuccessfully for another deletion discussion of a mall in Saskatoon. I don't understand this frenzy of deletions that is keeping so many Wikipedians away from positively contributing to building up this wonderful source of information. Why are the rules on deletions so subjective? Why is it OK to list every single Marriott hotel on this earth at Wikipedia, yet delete any article that has anything to do with commerce in Canada? Why is it OK to make articles about villages anywhere, whether populated or not and whether they have any references or not, but not if they happen to have been the subject of a development proposal? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, this AfD isn't a good place to address your concern. Wikipedia:Notability guidelines have been published for quite some time, but I'm sure there is someplace in Wikipedia where discussions about the guidelines are in ongoing discussions. Secondly, I haven't seen a particular rash of deletions lately, but I see from your talk page that you have, so be that as it may. As to the reason behind my recommendation to delete this particular article, it's because the Sapphire Tower never got built, and didn't cause any huge controversy, so how could it possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines? Maybe it does meet the guidelines somehow (at least one other editor thinks so), so the AfD process exists to allow the Wikipedia community to express opinions on the matter. I can live with the result - can you? PKT(alk) 15:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary, although no prejudice against working this into the article of whatever eventually takes that place (since that is the topic people will search to find the history of that site). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The idea that we should delete articles about failed projects, when there were sufficient WP:RS to support them prior to their cancellation is Orwellian. If our nominator still thinks this article should be deleted I'd like to point out that they don't seem to have offered a policy based reason for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's not true, although I'll grant my policy-based point isn't in the nomination itself. "As to the reason behind my recommendation to delete this particular article, it's because the Sapphire Tower never got built, and didn't cause any huge controversy, so how could it possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines?" PKT(alk) 17:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-existent subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Steve 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What did you find? There's only one source referenced in this article (and one of the references refers to the lot being sold, not the non-existent building that this article's about). I do not see "significant coverage" on this subject. PKT(alk) 14:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, somebody improved the article. Take a bow, Steve. PKT(alk) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help :) The Steve 08:57, 21 March 2012 (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.