Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investment Building


 * 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 redirect. Article was merged and redirected shortly after this AfD was started, and it's unclear whether it is desired that the redirect target (The Investment Building) also be nominated for deletion. So, this discussion is closed, but there is no prejudice against creating a new nomination for the redirect target, if so desired. (non-admin closure) &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Investment Building

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After a bit of Googling, I do think this fails WP:GNG. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, there doesn't seem to be any signifigant coverage, it's the organizations that are in the building that seem more notable. But, I'm not familiar with notability guidelines for buildings and I wasn't able to find any. I suppose all buildings could be notable in some regard for just...being there. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This article (created on 27 October 2006) has now been redirected to The Investment Building (created on 14 July 2008), with some of its content merged in. The last version of this article with the AfD notice is here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. So should we just consider the article merged and create a redirect? SarahStierch (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been made into a redirect already, which is why I put the info here - the AfD notice went with the article, into the history. The issue of notability remains. Up to you whether you consider the references in the newly combined article sufficient to establish notability - in that case you can declare so and the AfD can be closed. But I believe the notability is based more on the architecture than the tenants. I haven't examined it so I didn't !vote yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (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.