Talk:Sir Leonard Tilley Building

Notability

This message is directed to User:RadioFan: How has this article not stated the notability of the building? Did you miss the phrase: "The building includes the Communications Security Establishmen"? As a Canadian, I think that makes this building VERY notable. What country are you from? Let's delete the article of the building that houses the equivalent agency in your country. I'm sure you would not appreciate that. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and while I'm unfamiliar with CSEC I don't doubt its notability. Does that make the building notable though? Not inherently. But if you disagree feel free to remove the PROD template since you've now made your case. If it really bothers someone they can bring it to Articles for Deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Communications Security Establishment Canada is certainly notable, but it's not clear why the building they occupy is. Is it on some historic register? Is it an iconic example of some particular architectural style? If it is notable, there would be 3rd party reliable sources to draw upon. I'm afraid the existing reference to a listing of government buildings really doesn't demonstrate its notability. As ROttT points out, whats housed in the building doesn't make it inherently notable. --RadioFan (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Government buildings are not notable. I'll request a deletion of The Pentagon building. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into a US vs. Canada thing. Notabilty here is based on references, compare Google News searches on "Pentagon" and one on "Sir Leonard Tilley Building". Again the agency is notable, but that doesn't make the building notable. Perhaps redirecting the building's article to Communications Security Establishment Canada be best?--RadioFan (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

US vs. Canada thing? I have no idea what you are talking about. You said that government building are not worthy of being a Wikipedia article so they should all be deleted. As far as notability is concerned, well, where do you draw the line? You seem to be suggesting that not all buildings owned by federal governments are worthy of a Wikipedia article. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all government buildings are worthy of articles, but some are. No one's trying to say that no government buildings should get articles. Maybe this one's worthy of inclusion, maybe it's not. Unfortunately there's nothing in the article indicating that it is. It may be worth checking the results of the Google Books and Google News searches that Riffic mentioned below. Reach Out to the Truth 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

this can be sourced, just check google book search/ news archives for '"Tilley Building" Ottawa' riffic (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of Google Book hits on the search you suggest but not all are specific to this subject. It is not clear if this subject meets notability guidelines. The article still does not state how the building is notable outside of which agency occupies it. It has been tagged with notability concerns for now, rather than start a deletion discussion. Let's try to improve it.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)