One World Trade Center (Long Beach) : Sole source is Emporis, and then a source about how something else surpassed it in height.  Unable to locate any significant non-local coverage about this tower.  De-PROD'd with the following edit summary: second tallest building in Long Beach could be notable Naturally, no sourcing has been added to support this claim.  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California .  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes.  Regarding the significant local coverage point; whether or not coverage is local doesn't go to SIGCOV.  Coverage can be both local and significant.  In any case; SIGCOV merely establishes a presumption toward notability.  We don't need that presumption here; as the photographs of the building I think make a fair case that this is a notable subject.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is meant by a "strong visual argument"?  Isn't notability, etc. determined by sourcing? -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources do not only have to be textual. Visual sources demonstrative of notability may also satisfy GNG. Jack4576 ( talk ) 13:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This building is not notable in any way PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] lets see what the consensus thinks Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . User:Jack4576 is correct.  And there is no way this should be outright deleted;  note it links to List of tallest buildings in Long Beach and at the very worst it should be merged/redirected to there, as the nominator should know.  The appropriate forum for such a proposal would be wp:MERGE . --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've added two sources from the Los Angeles Times which establish notability per WP:GNG .  Garuda3 ( talk ) 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I would close this as keep, but the arguments about "visual notability" are not rooted in policy were given next to no weight.  That left me with a no consensus situation that may be resolved by some analysis about the sources added by Garuda3.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] : Delete Assess of the newly added Sources: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Adler3 Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-long-beach-tower-s/124861892/ Local newspaper Local newspaper Routine sale of expensive building.  See below.  ✘ No https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-landmark-office-to/124862152/ They interview the building owners.  The owners say that the building is a "trendsetter".  Local newspaper Routine sale of expensive building.  See below.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Per WP:NBUILD "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" is required.  The two sources are just about the building being sold.  I think this building does not have "economic importance".  I would consider economic importance to be where a building that contains a large shopping mall at the ground floor, for example.  In both of the sources it is noted that the building is large and expensive, but it has not been said why it stands out from the rest.  Adler3 ( talk ) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NBUILD is just a guideline, not a policy, and is trumped by WP:GNG .  Besides, being "large and expensive" implies economic importance.  There is also no need for something to "stand out from the rest" for inclusion on Wikipedia, and there's no reason why discussio of a sale doesn't meet GNG.  WP:ROUTINE after all is part of our events guidelines and so isn't applicable to a building.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 20:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my understanding Guidelines are instructions how to apply policies in particular situations.  Economic importance would be that it makes up a significant percentage of the city or the county's economy, leads to the creation of neighborhoods, etc.  The sources do not point to that.  Rather, reading them, this building seems like a run-of-the-mill development.  About WP:ROUTINE : the building purchase could count as a routine event.  Adler3 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per the relist comment, the idea of a photo from an editor in Commons showing notability is nonsense and I think trolling.  Fails GNG.  Source eval: Comments Source Interview, fails IS  1.  "LATE STARTER".  Australian Financial Review.  13 October 2005.  Retrieved 15 May 2023.  Quote from subject, fails IS  2. ^ O'Sullivan, Matt (5 January 2010).  "Webjet is just the ticket".  The Sydney Morning Herald.  Retrieved 15 May 2023.  Fails V, 404  3. ^ Odi, Teresa (20 January 2008).  "Webjet chief's relief at missing out on Travel.com".  The Australian.  Retrieved 4 May 2012.[dead link] Jack obviously did a complete BEFORE and had nothing but a photo to show.  // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that it is trolling.  Rather Jack was arguing that a skyscraper should belong in an encyclopedia by virtue of being a skyscraper.  I think there was some merit to saying that 70 years in the past.  But I think that now there are just too many skyscrapers around for any given skyscraper to be considered notable.  Adler3 ( talk ) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not what they said, their exact words are "The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes." // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I change my mind.  Adler3 ( talk ) 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument appears to have no relation to this article.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added to the article's talk page a baker's dozen sources that demonstrate notability and could be used to expand the article.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as demonstrated by Garuda3 and Worldbruce .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:58, 22 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep