Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 King's Bench Walk


 * 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   delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

4 King's Bench Walk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. Having notable members doesn't make the chambers de facto notable. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. An attempt at making the building interesting but I don't think it is enough. Not notable in their own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable building. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There's good content here which we should retain per our editing policy. The worst case is an alternative to deletion such as merger into a section in a broader article like Inner_Temple. Andrew (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.  No amount of editing can solve a lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2014 (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.