Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenfell Tower (2nd nomination)


 * 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 a snow keep. Grenfell passes notability tests due to its coverage in numerous reliable sources, including BBC News, ITV News and several large newspapers. (non-admin closure) In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 21:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was discussed last year, a week or two after the fire, and the result was no consensus, so I'm nominating this again now some time has passed to see if a consensus can be reached. Although the tower is obviously highly well-known now, because of the tragic fire, I think it comes under something like a WP:ONEEVENT heading. And yes, ONEEVENT talks mainly about BLP individuals, but the principle is the same - this building is not notable in and of itself, it is just notable because of the fire, which is already fully covered at the article Grenfell Tower fire. In particular, we don't have articles about similar-sized towers in the area such as Dixon House or Whitstable House, because I don't think individual tower blocks would normally pass the WP:GNG criteria. I recommend that this article be merged into Grenfell Tower fire and replaced with a redirect to that article, as that is by far the most likely thing people will be looking for if they type "Grenfell Tower" into the search box. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes the fire was very notable but the building also got a lot of attention, which can be seen in the depth of information available in the article on the tower itself. Additionally, clicking "Page information" shows that the page has been viewed 45,000 times over the past month. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 08:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably mostly by people looking for the article on the fire. You haven't commented on whether the building itself was notable, independent of the fire, which I suspect it was not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - as the above comment says, the building got a lot of attention. Vorbee (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - there was nothing notable about this building prior to the fire, therefore it does not justify a stand alone article. Much of the general building information is useful, but it should be in a section of the Grenfell Tower fire article. Non-notable without reference to the fire, and leads to unnecessary duplication.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, I agree that there was nothing notable about the building prior to the fire, therefore it makes no sense to have 2 articles about the building and fire now. My preference would be to merge the two under under Grenfell Tower fire.   PK  T (alk)  11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Very clearly and obviously passes the GNG. Gaurdian put out an article 51 minutes ago on the building itself. "We don't have articles about other stuff" is a horrific argument, and it sounds like the nom failed to do a BEFORE, just looked at the calendar instead and trotted this up for deletion. {{tq|I don't think individual tower blocks would normally pass the WP:GNG criteria};} Well we don't give a hoot about "individual tower blocks", this AFD and the article in question is about the Grenfell Tower, not individual tower blocks. Sorry for the bad faith, but that is how I view the situation. And ONEEVENT is flawed, everyone and everything starts somewhere. JB Straubel could be argued to be best known for his work as CTO of Tesla, let's merge and redirect him. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep And a very strong one at that. A clear and obvious pass of the WP:GNG. I fail to understand the reasoning behind why the building would need to be merged into the article about the disaster. The information isn't necessarily duplicated. SportingFlyer  talk  17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to satisfy WP:GNG given that the amount of coverage it received has made it notable. The article also has other information as well, it is not exclusively about the fire. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It may well not have been a notable building before the fire but since the fire there has been a mass of reporting about the building as it was before the fire. We do not ask why there is coverage (of the pre-fire building) we simply ask that there is such coverage. Even if the analogy with people is appropriate using WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" rather strongly advises we should have both articles. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the past AFD participants took me for a local, maybe i have jolly accent or whatnot, but I am glad the article was Kept and developed. The article is really good now, thank you to the editors who have developed it so well with sources and illustrations and great text.  Of course it meets wp:GNG. --Doncram (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG easily met, and in the future it'll definitely a hallmark point in fire code legislation, no doubt.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear case of GNG pass. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The entry on the fire is massive, some 280,000 bytes. It seems like a worthwhile content fork to have a separate entry on the structure/site in addition to the event. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article sufficiently covers the aspects of the building in excruciating detail (as already does the article on the fire); in all seriousness, this is a case of one event. But I am also a realist, understand recentism bias, and the "easily passes GNG, look at the Google hits" rationales that come with it. So maybe in the future there can be a legitimate discussion on policy in relation to this non-notable building. Just not today, apparently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the first person to mention Google, or hits – perhaps Google isn't notable! If I were going to try deleting this sort of thing I'd try Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks which, for me, has a "one event" transitory nature unlike a building with architectural characteristics and a history. But I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Thincat (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - a number of people above are saying the building is a GNG, and that's certainly true, I didn't deny that. My comment in the nomination was that buildings of this nature wouldn't normally meet GNG, and I don't think Grenfell Tower did prior to the fire, except as part of the wider Lancaster West Estate. But although this does meet the criteria for WP:GNG, there is a key part which is being missed: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. ONEEVENT entities routinely fall into the category of notable subjects which don't merit their own article, but can be discussed sufficiently in the event article. For example, Madeleine McCann certainly satisfies all the GNG criteria, she's one of the most written about people of the last eleven years, but her coverage is subsumed into the event article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann because that it's better for readers and the information is better presented that way. I don't think having this article at Grenfell Tower, when the subject of most interest is the fire, is helpful for readers. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The value of these discussions lies in the the opinions and issues it raises. Some of which I do find ludicrous. We had not got round to writing an article on Silchester Estate (though a redlink had been left in Lancaster West Estate article) when the fire happened and generally out of respect, that dampened any enthusiam that we had to discuss other issues of housing in RBKC. As you can see from the contents of the Grenfell Tower article it is very notable in terms of modern London architecture. An article on Silchester West (Dixon Frinstead and Markland) and Silchester East (Whitstable) probably would be a better starting point until we have enough GNG to float those towers. We have a good starting point in the discussions hereI don't take this ruralist POV that it is ok to document a near deserted village Sunderland Point with a population of 6, and not a vertical London village with 80 units. ClemRutter (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2018 (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.