Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchandise Building

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 of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article about generic building in Toronto - it was a merchandise building, newly converted to lofts. Mindmatrix 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A local landmark, and an architecturally interesting structure. - SimonP 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Trollderella 17:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable mortar. Dottore So 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; seems to have some kind of notability (it's sort of borderline). I have made some light edit on the article. The building itself is ugly. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ugly but notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I still can't figure out how people are coming up with the idea that this building is notable, but you may ignore my vote if one of them actually adds this mysterious claim of notability to the article. — Haeleth Talk 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It was built in 1930 and considered historically significant enough for there to be intervention to prevent demolition in 1995. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only reference this article links to doesn't even list it among notable buildings of Toronto. It's an old commercial building converted into residential lofts. Although it comes from the Art Deco period it's not a very good example of the style. No significant events happened here. The world has many non-notable buildings. This is one of them. Durova 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this landmark. -- Perfecto  03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd vote keep if there was something in the article to establish landmark status. I should note that it is not even included the a landmark category. Vegaswikian 07:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not establish notability Pete.Hurd 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Building is noteworthy and notable example of urban gentrification on one of the largest scales ever seen in the loft movement. Jtmichcock 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Granted, the article in its current state does not suggest that the building is noteworthy. However, it is notable. First, the Merchandise Building is a landmark, and arguably the most noted example of loft conversion in Toronto. Second, downtown Toronto was once the retail capital of the country, containing most of the Eaton's and Simpson's factories and mail order warehouses. In an age when Canada was mostly rural, when Canadians did far more of their shopping through catalogues than today, and Eaton's and Simpson's between them controlled more than 70% of all department store sales, this building was a hub serving Canadians from coast to coast. It is the last remaining of the Eaton's and Simpson's warehouses/factories in the core. Third, this building is at the vanguard of the green roof movement in Toronto and Canada, with a 10,000 square foot green roof -- it was the first significant green roof on a residential building in Toronto. Skeezix1000 14:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmmm...the housing cooperative that I live in is currently working on a 22,000 sq. ft. green roof which, when done, will be AFAIK the largest residential green roof in at least Ontario and quite possibly all of Canada. Does that mean my building merits an article, too? (I'm genuinely curious.) Bearcat 00:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if someone can cite a source that it's the largest, IMO it merits an article — once the roof is finished, of course. :) -- Perfecto  01:05, 19 November 2005 (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.