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. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower (Tampa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This is a long-dead project which has lost any notability it ever had. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plethora of third-party sources in Google News search indicates notability and notability is not temporary. The article is in a poor state but that is a reason to improve, not delete, it (WP:UGLY, WP:OUTDATED). All the reasons for keeping it last time still seem to apply. Dricherby (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What exactly is notable about a building that doesn't exist? And if the building doesn't exist and never will, how can those same reasons (whatever they were; I can't figure it out from the discussion) from five years ago still apply? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia's standard for notability is that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It has nothing to do with whether the topic is somehow important, for example. This non-building has received vast amounts of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Not only did it receive significant coverage in the past but it's still receiving some coverage even today (which is not required but definitely a bonus). Dricherby (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dricherby. Notability, once acquired, never expires. (Sadly, this is also true of The Donald himself.) It was in the news mere days ago.[1] Good golly, Miss Molly, it was even mentioned in Rolling Stone.[2] Next time, do a little checking WP:BEFORE. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it passes the GNG by a reasonable margin. Notability isn't dependent on the status of a project; we have plenty of undoubtably notable articles on proposed infrastructure, ships which have sunk, academic theories which have been discredited, faraway lands which don't actually appear on modern maps, standards which have been superseded, objects which never got off the drawing board, and outright hoaxes. bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (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.