Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Pump Court Chambers


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

5 Pump Court Chambers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete.  Per nom. Its the members that are notable not the chambers. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and I doubt that its logic can be applied here. Places (and this is a building) typically acquire notability for their inhabitants and the events that happen there. James500 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. Move to Pump Court and rework to include the entire street, which appears to be notable from sources in GBooks such as this. James500 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also sources dealing directly with this building, such as this. Another person who had chambers there was Thomas Artemus Jones. James500 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am about to effect the move and rewrite. James500 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Further expansion is required but this should be immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing my vote to keep, this is a valid way of dealing with the matter of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Pump Court obviously satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per James500,It passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:22, 16 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.