Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Stone Buildings


 * 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. Kudos to for his excellent work on the restructured article. Philg88 ♦talk 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

5 Stone Buildings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete . Some of the members may be notable but I doubt the chambers themselves are. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 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) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Serious consideration should be given to the possibility of merging this article and 11 Stone Buildings into a single article at Stone Buildings, dealing with the entire street, which is likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. I think Stone Buildings probably has a chapter in this. They were constructed in 1774 by Sir Robert Taylor. When one feeds that into GBooks one gets quite a few results quickly including things like this. Palladian design is highly regarded. Pitt the Younger had chambers there. Appears as a setting in a novel by Anthony Trollope. And so forth. I think Stone Buildings is notable and the merger, redirect and rewrite I proposed should go ahead. James500 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Move to Stone Buildings and make it about the building as a whole? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is essentially what I am proposing. The same sort of job I did at Paper Buildings and Pump Court. James500 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am iminently about to perform this rewrite. I don't know if I'll finish it in a day. James500 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure we can wait a few days to see the outcome. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. The article requires and will receive further expansion but should be immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC) @ User:Philafrenzy: Is the article acceptable now? James500 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As regards, no. 5 itself, it seems that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Solicitor to the Treasury were there. Quite a few sources mention this. This is official. The editorial office of The Law Times (236 vols from 1843 to 1965 when it merged into the New Law Journal) was there: . The Office of the General Council of the Bar might also have been there. James500 (talk) 12:42, 12 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, NorthAmerica1000 09:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Stone Buildings obviously satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am changing my vote to keep. Thanks to James500's excellent work the current article is clearly notable. With a few possible exceptions, most of the sets will not be individually notable so this is the right way to handle them in my view. I think the info boxes could also be removed. I haven't checked but if there are more then they could get the same sort of amalgamation. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:07, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 12:42, 23 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.