Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York House, Lambeth


 * 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   delete. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

York House, Lambeth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A demolished non-descript office building. None of the 11 sources provided demonstrate why this was notable. Those that are listed are incidental mentions or directory listings. Fuebaey (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - nondescript office building which has been demolished with little fanfare. Article and sources give no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sourcing attests to the fact that the building once existed, but does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

-Arb. (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a much belittling language above; always telling. In fact the eleven references clearly meet the three key tenents of WP:GNG:
 * 1) "Significant coverage": addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research was needed to extract the content ... more than a trivial mention but need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * 2) "Reliable": sources have editorial integrity.
 * 3) "Sources" are secondary sources.
 * As the article creator, are you genuinely suggesting that these references:, , , and  are not directory listings? Fuebaey (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear the sources are:
 * a database of new property developments and buildings in London; as a directory, this building's inclusion is a matter of course and not a matter of notability
 * a website dedicated to photographing every square kilometre of Great Britain and Ireland; this building's inclusion is a matter of course and not a matter of notability
 * a government planning report in response to a planning submission; this is routine planning administration activity and does not denote notability
 * some guy's blog about a pub crawl; hardly a reliable source
 * it's a listing for a tenant in the bibliography of a book; that is hardly significant
 * it's a listing of abbreviations of engineering bodies of which one happens to have offices in this building; again, not at all significant
 * it's an appendix listing some funding sources of which one organisation in the list happens to have an office in the building; again, not at all significant
 * it's yet another appendix listing which includes a building tenant; again, not at all significant
 * this is as explicit a directory as one can get; again, not at all significant
 * this is an archaeological report provides a passing mention; this is not significant coverage -- Whpq (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - above keep is unconvincing. The sources in the article are sufficient to ascertain that the building existed but that doesn't mean it is notable. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:GNG; in particular, there is not significant coverage of this building. The one source not mentioned in Whpq's list is the one supporting the car parking in the basement, which is not anything notable either. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (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.