- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1 point 3, and all current !votes have been to keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Central Building (Seattle) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment two offline print sources are listed. If these are non-trivial independent RS, the GNG is met regardless of what you do or do not see on-line, correct? Were you able to see and evaluate these? Jclemens ( talk) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Historic/landmark building, helpful info here. I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. Sounder Bruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn ( talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you
Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you
Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:29, 28 November 2023 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1 point 3, and all current !votes have been to keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Central Building (Seattle) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment two offline print sources are listed. If these are non-trivial independent RS, the GNG is met regardless of what you do or do not see on-line, correct? Were you able to see and evaluate these? Jclemens ( talk) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Historic/landmark building, helpful info here. I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. Sounder Bruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn ( talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you
Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you
Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:29, 28 November 2023 (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.