Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/125 London 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. Tone 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

125 London Wall[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Non notable building. Codf1977 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a very impressive building, and very unusually built, above another and to save the old London Wall. I don't know how well you know the City of London (I actually work on London Wall) but even though it's not terribly tall, it stands out on the London skyline, and is easy to spot because of its proximity to the Barbican buildings. Here's a link [1] from Google Streetmaps, and another from the other side [2]. It's the big huge thing that the road goes through. It's pretty notable because of its unusual design and shape. --Tris2000 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building is notable, being featured in numerous works such as Britain & Ireland: contemporary art + architecture handbook; London: A Guide to Recent Architecture; Building services journal &c. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Independent works indicate its architectural notability. Besides not following WP:BEFORE, the nom simply states "Non notable building" without any reasoning.--Oakshade (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've improved the article a bit with a photograph and some information from online sources which I hope help to establish its notability. Further additions from printed sources would be good.Cavrdg (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artivle makes clear that this is an architecurally notable building. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 21 August 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.