Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. V. Locsin Building

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 Snow keep . No !delete votes other than the nominator, and consensus has essentially been reached to not proceed with the nomination on technical grounds. Nominator Babymissfortune is reminded to do a WP:BEFORE search, and also should instead nominate the affected articles individually. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L. V. Locsin Building[edit]

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

No claim of notability. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Lepanto Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep/Close - Far too many varied articles to batch AfD for. There's not even a proper rationale for these. For example One Shangri-La Place Towers is the tallest twin towers in the Philipines and the 2nd tallest building in the Philipines outright. It seems the nom is simply looking at what article editor UnitedPhilippines created and AfD'd them without proper vetting or following WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: Mass AFD nominations are a bad thing and this should be closed and start individual AFD if still sought. Nobody can fairly !vote in blanket style like this. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close. Some of these buildings may be non-notable but this mass nomination that also includes obviously notable ones is not an appropriate means for considering it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy procedural close per WP:SNOW can avoid a long drawn out affair.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2017 (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.