Deletion of Grenfell Tower (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  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 de
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Seems to satisfy  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: And a very strong one at that. A clear and obvious pass of the . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:RECENTISM)