Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Johnston House

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 Merge to East Dunbartonshire. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:48Z

[edit] Tom Johnston House

Tom Johnston House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There's not much worth saying about Tom Johnston House Mike 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was in two minds whether to revert the vandalism before nominating for delete. As it was quite humerous I left as is! To avoid other unnecessary looking back at history the article as originally written said

• Clearly. Speedy delete as CSD A1 (context) since it doesn't really say anything, or perhaps CSD G3 (vandalism) since it seems to exist "in your ass". --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The version of the article that is under AFD is the result of vandalism. Mind you, the earliest non-vandal version is an unreferenced stub with a very weak implication of notability. -- Whpq 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I guess I should look through the history more often. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I fixed the vandalism, but I'm still not convinced about the notability of the house. Is it a historic structure, or is it just a modern city hall (like Image:Bloomingtontownhall.jpg)? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment it is the local council offices. Apart from being named after Tom Johnson (a politician I hadn't heard of before I arrived in this area), I know of nothing notable about the building. It's not historic, I don't know of any particular architecture feature - even the council don't say much about it Mike 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into East Dunbartonshire (which is a desperately stubby article) and leave this as a redirect. -- RHaworth 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Rhaworth. May not be notable unto itself. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Thomas Johnston. I think most people would be interested in the man, not the building. Cloveoil 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to East Dunbartonshire and/or Thomas Johnston. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (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.