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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Building (Windsor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless I'm missing something, this does not pass any notability guideline. It is not a skyscraper and it does not seem to pass WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG. Spiderone 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - due to heritage trust listing. I'll be more mindful of this in future in my BEFORE search Spiderone 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can't see an instance in which a large 1920s Art Deco building would not be notable. Listed on the Ontario Heritage Act Register, so close to meeting WP:GEOFEAT on that alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would everything listed on Heritage Trust automatically warrant a stand-alone article on that basis? Spiderone 11:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just about. Remember reliable sources per GNG include "reports by government agencies." Each listing must include in-depth reports supporting the listing and explaining why the listing is considered notable by the agency. For this one the reports were easy to find. [1][2]Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Keep - sources I found: Ontario Heritage Trust (thanks Necrothesp), Windsor Star, CTV News. I'd feel better about it if a few more sources were found, but the I think the historic designation is enough for me. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but Canada Permanent Trust Building seems to be a similar situation, but with its couple sources actually in the article. Chris857 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Heritage Trust listing and the sources found by Chris857 warrant a passing of our notability standards. Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2020 (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.