Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Cabot Square


 * 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. This is a borderline case and, despite being re-listed thrice, no consensus either way has emerged after a month of discussion.  JGHowes   talk  03:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

1 Cabot Square

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A nice, normal, average building. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Probably keep, maybe merge but certainly don't delete. The Credit Suisse building isn't "a nice, normal, average building", it's one of the seven original buildings of Canary Wharf which is probably the most significant 20th-century structure in the UK. (Canary Wharf isn't just a routine commercial development; it's the hub of the global banking system, and is single-handedly responsible for the shift in London's economic and commercial centre eastwards from the City and Westminster, and consequently for the creation of London City Airport, the 2012 Olympics, the Elizabeth Line, the O2, Westfield, ExCel, the DLR…) There's an argument to be made that it might make more sense for the individual buildings to be covered at Canary Wharf rather than as stand-alone pages, but that would probably make the already-long parent article unmanageably large. &#8209; Iridescent 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I tend to agree with Iridescent. WP:BEFORE should involve some sort of examination of contemporary sources. Canary Wharf was one of the most major redevelopments of London and I believe 1 Cabot Square was the second tallest building in the first phase of this. However, I notice not even Pei Cobb Freed & Partners mention it on their website and, like much architecture in that area 1 Cabot Square seems unremarkable form an architectural point of view. There is scope for it to be merged to the Cabot Square article and summarised at Canary Wharf, at worst. Sionk (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment At worst this is a merge - the building was discussed in newspapers.com a couple times which is mostly North American+SMH+The Age+some Canada but not significantly, so struck out on contemporary coverage, but I'd be surprised if a search of English newspapers from the early 1990s wouldn't lead to GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the key here is that the decision doesn't just reflect this one article but the whole development. There are a fair number of buildings on Canary Wharf which have articles, some arguably less notable than 1 Cabot Circus, but all of which include meaningful content which should not be lost. Ian3055 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per above commnents. Appears to pass WP:GNG Artw (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: none of the keep votes above mention IS RS with SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited from surroundings.  // Timothy ::  talk  10:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I don't see how this building meets notability criteria under buildings, organizations & companies or architecture. There are few citations about anything other than the transfers of ownership of this building.  Duncan079 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Duncan079, this is your seventh edit on the site and yet you show some good knowledge of our notability criteria - may I ask if you've participated in one of these discussions before? SportingFlyer  T · C  23:20, 11 December 2020 (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.