40 Bank Street: Its current and former tenants don't make it so, Heron Quays could be a viable ATD as could César_Pelli#1990–2005 .  Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England .  Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm perplexed.  I may yet offer a formal opinion.  There is a (false?) premise of inherent notability for many large buildings.yet there appear to be very few sources about this building per se, rather than about the various occupants.  This is the only additional reference I have found, and it is simply a set of tabulated facts.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has quite a few language links but the sources listed don't appear to show notability but I'm not sure.  You would expect London's joint 36th tallest building to have coverage though.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 22:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep.  It's the premise @ Timtrent alludes to.  The guidelines were created out of "there should be", but it has turned out these buildings never quite attained the anticipated coverage.  I think because they became so relatively common in the construction booms of the last two decades.  Star Mississippi 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect we have List of tallest buildings and structures in London , and either the "1980s, 1990s and 2000s" or "Tallest buildings and structures" sections of that article would also make useful redirect targets.  Alternatively, merging to a new article about tall buildings at Canary Wharf (as I expect several other skyscrapers there have similar issues, although I've not looked) might make sense.  This title shouldn't be a redlink though.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : after taking sometime to consider and to perform a detailed WP:BEFORE I have concluded that this building is not inherently notable even if individual tenants are,  Sufficient other articles exist for this to be mentioned in them, and it is part of a list anyway.  There is no scope for an independent article on this.  Fails WP:GNG .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to Canary Wharf Group ; there's independent coverage in this article by RIBA Journal (an architecture magazine) and this article by CoStar Group , though it's unclear whether it's deep enough and/or focused enough on the building itself to merit a standalone Wikipedia article.  Much of the coverage describes the building in the context of the company, so a merge might be an appropriate alternative.  Left guide ( talk ) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the coverage demonstrated by Left guide.  Oakshade ( talk ) 06:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete this stub because there is no evidence of notability.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I find it funny that a village or hamlet of 50 residents would be automatically notable per WP:GEOLAND, even if their "notability" is limited to appearing in some land survey, while the notability of a building that is the workplace of thousands and often mentioned in the news is questioned.  I bet more people routinely sleep in that building than do in, say, Nine Ashes , Essex.  I realize that WP:NBUILDING and WP:POPULATED have very different notability thresholds.  It just sometimes strains credulity the extent to which the two vary.  Owen× ☎ 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well yes Nine Ashes may be legally recognized as its an OS settlement but yes it does seem otherwise a bit funny, the notability of OS settlements has been debated and we don't appear to have a clear consensus on this.  Nine Ashes was created (by me) over 13 years ago and GEOLAND may have got tighter since then.  Personally my instinct is to say the building is notable but the only presumed notability are for things protected on a national level and even that has been questioned, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) .  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I love it that we have articles such as Nine Ashes here.  This is exactly what our WP:NOTPAPER top-level policy encourages us to create and keep.  When flowed down to the subject-specific guideline level, however, we ended up with wildly varying degrees of notability requirements.  So 40 Bank Street, if it were to be classified as a "settlement" (and its "population" is larger than that of many towns!), would automatically qualify under WP:POPULATED.  As a building , it struggles for notability.  Anyway, this debate would be more suitable for a policy RfC than on this AfD.  Still, it's an honour to meet the author of a goodly portion of all UK place articles!  Owen× ☎ 17:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess it could be argued that because settlements contain buildings they are more likely to be seen as notable than a single building but clearly the 36th tallest building in London is more important than a hamlet even if it contains many buildings.  I guess though it could also be argued that streets contain many buildings yet we tend to be strict with notability of streets.  @ OwenX : Just out of interest was it chance that you mentioned an article I created when I commented above questioning notability?  Just wandering.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pure chance; I didn't even check that article's history.  I was looking for a hamlet outside London, ideally with a number as part of its name, to contrast with the street-numbered building.  In retrospect, seeing your massive article creation list, it's not exactly shocking I happened to land on one of yours...  Owen× ☎ 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think these four sources (two already mentioned above) suffice for GNG, especially when combined with a high probability of offline sources: [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] .  Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 21:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update : I found some additional sources (most of them minor; but at least one book, London High , that might be more significant).  The most significant new source is this one , which discusses the architecture of the building.  I incorporated all of them into the article.  Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 13:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arbitrarily0 , very good work, thanks!  Left guide ( talk ) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of this discussion of population is entirely wrongheaded.   Notability is not about population at all.   Nor is it about importance.   It's about documentation .   Nine Ashes is actually Nine Ashes Farm and has a documented history, more extensive than our article supplies, going back to the 19th century some of which is in the Victoria County History.   Whereas I struggle to find more than a mere mention of this building even in the coffee-table book that is entirely about the architectural firm that designed it ( ISBN 9783775713290 ).  That is why Nine Ashes passes the test and this building is borderline.  Uncle G ( talk ) 00:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " Nine Ashes Farm " is a listed house in Nine Ashes hamlet they are not synonymous.  There are at least another 2 listed buildings in Nine Ashes namely Walnut Tree Cottage and Hardings .  Both the hamlet and 3 listed buildings all have names wile the building we are discussing doesn't even have a name.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, they are.   Go and dig up the history, and you'll find things about houses being built at Nine Ashes Farm for farmworkers.   ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Arbitrarily0.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - if this ever turns into a notability guideline, it'll probably get the shortcut "WP:9ASHES"...  Owen× ☎ 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Uncle G/On notability has explained this for 17 years, of course, and is how the guidelines came about.  Uncle G ( talk ) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Interesting to compare this with 25 Bank Street and the way the narrative is spun and sources used in that article.  Rupples ( talk ) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really, if one thinks about this the right way, the simple and obvious way given that Wikipedia is all about verifiable knowledge.   That building is documented with things like who unveiled a plaque in front of it in 2004 ( ISBN 9781471113567 p.98) and its rather infamous changes of ownership.  This building barely warrants a 1 line mention in several of the publications that it is found in.  Left guide 's and Arbitrarily0 's sources do a little better, although they are just shy of being outright press releases, with the CoStar one even openly disclosing its promotional conflict of interest at the bottom and the FMJ one following the standard press release format of "Company XYZ has done PQR!" followed by a bunch of corporate officer quotes filled with fact-less buzzwords and hyperbole of how "fantastic" (word actually used in the source) it is.  If one stops with the whole "But, but, but fame and importance !" ( Fame and importance were rejected in 2004.) and "But, but, but population !" and even "But, but, but it is on the same street !" and just looks at how well the world outwith the article subject's creators/promoters has noted the article subject it all becomes very easy.   Nine Ashes Farm made it into a history book.  Uncle G ( talk ) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comment doesn't imply 25 Bank Street is notable (not that you said it did).  At first glance it gave me an appearance of such compared to this article and led me to believe this article had good potential for expansion.  Though when one checks 25 Bank Street through much of its sourcing seems primary and/or not independent.  Rupples ( talk ) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thryduulf , Timtrent , Doczilla , Uncle G : please consider re-evaluating based on the sources now in the article.  Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 14:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Wasn't sure what to recommend yesterday.  Thanks to User:Arbitrarily0 the article is in much better shape today — in particular the new architectural points highlighted from additional sources, sufficient to pass the GNG.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus