Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/34th Street Wall

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

34th Street Wall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Google Books showed up nothing and although Google News had several hits, it is coverage in the local newspaper. Possibly worth a redirect/merge to Gainseville. Has been tagged for notability for over a year. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Tampa Bay Times and The Gainesville Sun articles already in the article are very good in-depth examples of coverage. Also the The Independent Florida Alligator and WCJB-TV give good coverage. [1][2] There is nothing in WP:GNG which stipulates the banning of articles that have "local" coverage or discounting such coverage. Gainesville isn't "local" to the Tampa Bay anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wonderful photo is enough to warrant a page but there seems to be plenty of text coverage in books too. Andrew (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone and surprisingly Andrew - I never thought in my entire life I would say this but the images are enough to warrant an article.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2014 (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.