Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Westferry Circus


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn in light of sources offered. Novaseminary (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

11 Westferry Circus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Other than WP:MILL reasons, this eleven story building in Canary Wharf, London seems to fail WP:GNG. For example, the handful of gNews archive hits are not about the building, but about tenants' location. There doesn't seem to be RS coverage about this building. Novaseminary (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as The anxious city: English urbanism in the late twentieth century: "The original development was completed by the final large building at the western end, 1–11 Westferry Circus, by a consortium including SOM and Koetter, Kim Associates. Faced in limestone, this structure curves gently around the traffic ...". Warden (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That one-sentence mention seems to be referencing the building 11 is attached to-- 1 -- as much as 11. And how does this brief blip meet the substantial and multiple requirements of GNG? Novaseminary (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While significant coverage is needed to pass the letter of GNG, it does not and has never "required" multiple sources.--Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, nothing is ever "required" (save maybe some BLP issues). Per WP:GNG, though, "Multiple sources are generally expected" and "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." I see no reason for an article about this building to depart from the general practice. And are you claiming that one to two sentences talking about this building (combined with another) actually meets the significant coverage prong of GNG? "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Mention of this building in the Canary Wharf article might be ok per the source above, but if that is all there is, I don't see how that comes within miles of GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was clarifying your incorrect stipulation that GNG "requires" multiple sources. As you just cut and pasted the relevant sentence, it doesn't.  Upon closer inspection of the source provided by Colonel Warden, it's actually beyond a "one sentence mention" as you claimed above.  Colonel Warden only quoted one sentence. --Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are mincing words and correcting each other, I didn't make any stipulation. But thanks for the clarification. In light of the brief mention in the book, and the the Chief Executive article, I will withdraw the nom. Novaseminary (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources found do seem to pass WP:GNG. This source is very in-depth and addresses the subject in detail and this is beyond the scope of WP:GNG's "passing mention".  The "tenants location" is the building. --Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (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.