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. Tiptoety ^talk 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Center[edit]

Starbucks Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete nothing to indicate that this 12-floor building, of which there are many in Seattle, is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a few sources. Largest building in Seattle, world headquarters for Starbucks and oldest/largest in the country to receive green certification. --Smashville^BONK! 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral "largest building in Seattle? Not even close! The Columbia/Bank of America Tower DWARFS the Starbucks center. The Starbucks center is large and internally has quite the impressive campus, but it is not the biggest by any means. I don't know where you got that info but it is waaay off. I have no problem keeping the article however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.68.67 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I sourced it in the article. And I just looked...300,000 square feet larger than the Columbia Center. But here are more [1] [2]According to this, it is the largest building west of the Mississippi. And according to the Columbia Center article on Wikipedia, the Columbia Center is at least 300,000 square feet smaller. --Smashville^BONK! 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "largest multi-tenanted building west of the Mississippi" is a somewhat less ambitious claim. See also List of largest buildings in the world#Largest area. The Warren G. Magnuson Health Sciences Building is over three times larger. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think largest building in Seattle and headquarters of Starbucks is plenty. Not to mention that there are tons of sources...I just don't know enough about it to write it. --Smashville^BONK! 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The main problem is that some of those comparative claims are either out of date or incompletely researched. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourcing seems to establish notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The building housing one of the world's most high profile companies is notable in itself. The sources further establish notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The building is quite old by Seattle standards and has housed two Fortune 500 companies in its history. Its size is also remarkable relative to its surroundings. White 720 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (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.