Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Centrium, Woking
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Centrium, Woking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non - notable building. Contested PROD NtheP (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —NtheP (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. It's a block of flats, not particularly different from any other similarly modern urban development. It has a vaguely interesting shape, my kids call it the ship, but it's not notable for this--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PLEASE CAN YOU STOP THIS MR PAINTEDONE YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY IAM PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS AND YOU BASICLY WANT TO DELETE ALL MY ARRITICLES IAM GOING TO START DELETING YOURS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the other article, it was not me who has proposed this for deletion. In fact, as I stated on the talk page of the article, I deliberatelty didn't propose it precisely because I didn't want to appear to be mounting a vendetta against you. Instead I actually added some refs and formatting to the article to try and help you improve it, even though I didn't think it was suitably notable, and left it for other editors to judge. As you can see, someone else did put it forward, and now it is in AfD I have stated my view. If you think any of the articles I have contributed to have issues requiring deletion, please feel free to propose them and I will be happy to discuss them in light of wikipedia policies at AfD--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The contents of this page, along with that of New central, which is also being considered for deletion, have been cut and pasted into a new article, Barratt Developments in Woking. All three articles were created by the same user. If both these article end up being deleted, I can't see how this new one could be notable either, and it could be seen as an attempt to avoid deletion. But in light of the comments above I'm not going to propose the new page, I'll let others assess it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The content has been merged to Barratt Developments in Woking
(sic). I have tidied that article a little, but I am also not sure that the buildings are important enough to need a separate joint article. If we do keep that at all, it should be Tall buildings in Woking, not limited to one developer (which would probably fail WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the article 'tallest buildings in Woking' has just been deleted at AfD, I can't see that flying. Frankly this entire topic of buildings in Woking is pretty much inherantly non-notable, and what few building related facts might be of interest can be more than adequately handled by a couple of lines in the main Woking article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Please don't create any more of these articles. -- roleplayer 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a block of flats. I am glad to hear there is (or will be again) a box for peregrines, but that doesn't confer notability. Please spend a little time (no, longer than that...) looking at articles about other developments before creating any more. Not every building is notable, and unless you can show that it has some special feature that we don't know about yet, it'll have to go. Articles come to AfD it it's not clear-cut and obvious that they should be deleted, and they come here for discussion. You're doing quite a good job creating these articles - it's just that you are picking subjects that are not really encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Similar reasons as above. If every apartment building had an article we'd be swimming in them. It is of purely local interest, and architecturally insignificant. Wexcan Talk 19:40, 26 December 2010 (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.