Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citygate Ecotower

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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citygate Ecotower

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

Delete This proposed building was probably just a outline concept to illustrate the architectural style of the designer. No actual physical site for the building was ever stated and no client mentioned. Wikipedia does not need to include every concept for a tall buildings in London. Consequently this article is not notable. Seaweed (talk), 19:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbuilt buildings can be notable. There are few good Ghits for this conceptual building. See this, this, this. Care must be taken to distinguish from a 19-story 'eco-tower' to be built in the city's Mile End, though. IF this meets WP:GNG it would seem to me to be just barely -- and I'm not arguing it does, at least not yet.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: - those are a different ecotower. This one was proposed 10 years before the proposal you've linked to. In any case, this tower seems non-notable - it hasn't happened, it won't happen and there's no sign it was ever likely to happen. Delete. Blythwood (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply none of this suggests better notability and there are no signs it will happen soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable FeatherPluma (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2016 (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.