Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 Westferry Circus

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. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 15 Westferry Circus

Non-notable office building Wildthing61476 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Research the Canary Wharf complex and you'll find It is indeed notable. Admittedly this is a small post but it's going to grow, don't kill a baby before it's born. phillprice 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything in the article that establishes notability, and I do not have the time and money to go to London and research the Canary Wharf complex. --DrTorstenHenning 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tube Lines is Silver Control for the London Underground used in 7/7/2005. Home of the Emergency Response Unit for the London Underground. One of the original members of the Canary Wharf complex. Should we delete everything we don't know about in other countries Torsten? --phillprice 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. What is special about Silver Control? If the building in question is the HQ of the Emergency Response Unit, it might be mentioned in an article on said unit. Likewise, if the notability stems from belonging to Canary Wharf, mentioning it in the Canary Wharf article should be sufficient. I am not saying that the info should not be in Wikipedia, I simply doubt that the building is worth an article of its own in an encyclopedia. --DrTorstenHenning 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a discussion of Tube Lines, and has no bearing upon the building that it leases. Uncle G 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Are there many articles about buildings like this? What are the criteria for notability? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See 969 Hayes Street (AfD discussion). Uncle G 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This was based on original research, which has been fixed. Phillprice 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• To be honest I work in the building and am probably biased. I clicked through to the dead page from another article and thought I'd help build the facility. Should I simply delete the link? Silver Control is the 2nd level of control for LU in the case of major disaster. Gold is in Whitehall Phillprice 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe a group of people can decide to delete a building from histroy because of it's notability. Take a look for a photo of Caary Wharf, it's in the skyline from the West angle, part of the original development now overshadowed by other towers whos notability is only height. Phillprice 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We aren't deleting the building from history, it's just not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Uncle G's example is a perfect example why. Wildthing61476 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So should it just be left as 3 words somewhere in Wikipedia, or is there some sort of funky Stub to use, bearing in mind it would mean a differen tpage linking to seperate buildings, or te redev of an existing page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillprice (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 15:14:04 (UTC)
  • A photograph is irrelevant. For an encyclopaedia article we need sources, sources, sources. The only sources that I can find are things like this and this, which are essentially devoid of any useful content for constructing an encyclopaedia article. It's a building. It was built, sold, and leased to various people. Most buildings are. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of every street address in the world. An encyclopaedia article requires published histories or analyses of the building. Rather than asking people to "research Canary Wharf" or "look at a photo", please cite sources. To demonstrate that this building is notable, show that it has been noted. Uncle G 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated Notoriety and sources cited Phillprice 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not particularly notable. Simply housing a company branch or whatever doesn't really make it notable. Wickethewok 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - there are a lot of Wikilinks to this page. WilyD 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment ... many if not most of them generated by the Canary Wharf navigation box ... --DrTorstenHenning 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ok it's up to you. I'll happily grow the page but I'm not going to until the delete box is removed. Or should I knock th ebuilding down in order to remove it from the navigation box? Phillprice 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply not-notable, eps. per UncleG. Eusebeus 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that what I wrote was merely an encouragement to the authors to actually present some sources to demonstrate that this is a notable building, as claimed. Since then, sources have been added to the article. Please look at the sources presented. Uncle G 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Silver Control is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete falls short of my personal criteria (as there is not accepted criteria) for inclusion of buildings. - IsoTope23
• Added 15 Mile marker (ironic!) of London Marathon and sources for the Silver control. Referenced Phillprice 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — If it houses a notable org. like Silver Control, it sohuld stay Martinp23 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Millions of buildings around the world house notable organizations. Heck, every building in a downtown area usually houses a notable business of some sort. Wickethewok 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge this and the other articles listed in the template at the bottom into one article on the buildings of Canary Wharf. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per Grutness's suggestion. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Phillprice, TruthbringerToronto, and Martinp23 or Merge per Grutness and SB_Johnny. --HResearcher 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this article is interesting and informative in its own right, its deletion would be a pointless exercise.Timredman 20:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Timredman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep A worthwhile part of Wikipedia's coverage of Canary Wharf, and it is better to have the details on the individual buildings in separate articles so that the main article can concentrate on the main points. Piccadilly 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a beautiful building and deserves a better picture. For those who claim non-notability, surely a good looking building deserves to go in an encyclopaedia as much as a painting or sculpture? I realise beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is at least unique. Mallanox 23:23, 20 August 2006 (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.