Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Bishopsgate


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

100 Bishopsgate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Google news finds almost no reporting on this vapourware construction project. Google books finds nothing at all. If Wikipedia were a crystal ball, which it isn't, this article might belong here. It's not, it doesn't. A passing mention in the List of tallest buildings and structures in London would be more than adequate coverage of this non-building. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not do that? Boldly trim it, merge it and redirect it.  You don't need an AfD.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A planned skyscraper in the capital of a sovereign state is notable. There is a reliable source referenced (skyskcrapernews.com), so only need inline citations. --hydrox (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, only as recently as two weeks ago there appears to have been public activity regarding these plans: --hydrox (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy for now. The key factor is enduring notability. It might have notability if the building goes ahead (depending on whether a building that tall is notable in a district full of tall buildings), but it certainly won't have enduring notability if it doesn't go ahead. At the moment, we don't know what will happen, so it's a WP:CRYSTAL. Happy to revisit if and when building starts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It has a major contractor on board, that has just bought 50% of the project, and it is now within 12 months of physical construction starting.  So it seems pretty likely to be going ahead.  But the key factor is present notability -- a proposal for a major building like this on a site like Bishopsgate is notable, and something we should cover.  (In addition to it having the required sourcing for notability by-the-book).  Jheald (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.