Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal

Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

7 english ghits, a handful in French and no google news hits. None of the articles assert any real sense of notability and a search of local press didn't turn up much either. Article has also been orphaned since November 2006. Travellingcari (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N, article in no way asserts notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable building in any way, given the total lack of third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Historic building by very notable architect firm Pearson and Darling, a strong assertion of notability. The French google search was flawed in that English words were used in the search terms (French Canadians are notorious for translating everything to French, even though the original names were in English). I've added some referenced content to the article. After doing some more research, I see the proper name is the "Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building". --Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just did a new French search on the alternate French term that someone added and still came up with very little. I'm not sure a notable architect=notable building. Travellingcari (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody can find significant coverage and/or prove that its on some historic list of buildings (a list maintained by a reliable source). Corpx (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have been inside the banking hall of the building, and I was impressed. A building like this would have attracted significant coverage at the time it opened, but 1909 newspaper articles and architectural magazines can't be searched with Google. --Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not true, here's a search from that decade. Google has indexed a fair bit of material from that time. I'd also say that being 'impressed' isn't notable. I'm impressed with the street meet served outside my office, but that doesn't mean it's notable or garnered any press attention. No one has proved that this building has -- in any language. Travellingcari (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Comment - Is true. Google News Archives search is limited to certain newspapers that publish most archives or previews online. Only a handful like the New York Times do. Currently, none of the Montreal newspapers, either still in operation or defunct, will display newspaper articles from that time period on Google News Archives search. --Oakshade (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment so then you go to the source. Local library. I don't think notability can be determined based on what might have been covered. Just my two cents. ProQuest might be an option, however I'm currently having trouble logging in via my school's network. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's what the original commenter was saying. You won't find urls from local newspapers from 1909. They exist on hardcopy and some of those references are now in the article. Print references are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

** CommentI read the revised article and my vote hasn't changed. I still don't think it meets notability. Clearly others agree as well. See above comments re: historic list of buildings and third party coverage. We'll see how it ends up but in my opinion, it still doesn't meet notability criteria.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —---Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —--18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oakshade (talk) t
• Keep "it was one of the very first skyscrapers in Montreal."[1] - what do you mean, it isn't notable? Link it to something and we're fine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with your sentiment, the skyscraper building you're referring to from that reference is the building next door, The Canada Life Building (which probably should have an article for the reason you stated). This building is the one with the large columns to the right of it in the photo. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah! Apologies my bad. That one looks a pretty good example of neoclassical architecture although it might be built a little late to be significant (for Montreal I mean) - I'll have a hunt. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the nomination seems rather moot now - the article appears to have more references than bodytext! Out of interest I did find it listed in a catalogue of fine art at the University of Toronto [2] and another photo [3] regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I can't for the life of me understand how people see a "lack of coverage". No Google News hits? Well what do you expect: it's an old building and a piece of architectural history in Montreal. Why would that make headlines? No Ghits? Did you check your favourite library instead? The building is mentioned in the Canadian Encyclopedia, in the journal Canadian Architect and Builder, is listed as a significant part of Montreal architecture by Phyllis Lambert and by the McCord Museum [4]. Look beyond Ghits people. There are references at the bottom of the page: if you're too lazy to track these down in the library, fine, but don't delete the article on the grounds that you can't see it on the web. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the above makes it clear that significant coverage has been achieved. SorryGuy  Talk  21:13, 6 February 2008 (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.