Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Big


 * 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 speedy keep. I'm not sure if this is the strict definition of WP:SK3, but it's close enough, when combined with the fact that "having WP:REDLINKs" is not anywhere close to in the deletion policy. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Building Big

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has broken links and isn't really needed on wiki ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep., please familiarise yourself with the deletion policy and WP:ATA before continuing with this spate of nominations. Neither of these are valid reasons for deletion. Building Big is a widely reviewed book by a notable author that was adapted into a Peabody Award-winning television series . It clearly meets WP:NBOOK. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Learn the difference between article space and template space, Reece. The template (specifically Template:David Macaulay) has the redlinkers, not the actual article, and the book and connected series are clearly notable.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:17, 13 November 2017 (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.