Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Undershaft


 * 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. No one but the nominator argues for deletion. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1 Undershaft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a proposed plan that has not yet been submitted for approval. It is nothing that exists in any real form. Deunanknute (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If that is the standard Wikipedia guidline for an article then the article will need deleting --LegereScire (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not. See WP:Crystal. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep – There is always a lot of discussion about new skyscrapers in London. If and when this gets financing and an application is made, there will be many articles about it before it's finished. Right now it is in the conceptual design phase and already it has multiple independent sources, in the article and also this one, from Architects' Journal. So technically it probably meets the requirements for GNG. Hence keep. Still, I'm reluctant to say keep outright because there is no guarantee that this design will ever get built. It's very common for the design to change, usually for financial reasons. OTOH the original design is part of the history and could feature in an eventual article. So I don't know. It's still very early, but the design does exist. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 07:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep There seems to be significant coverage even this early. That's not really surprising for a project this size.  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - whether this project comes to fruition, there is already sufficient coverage out there to pass WP:GNG with no doubt much more to come as the project progresses. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (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.