Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chateau Royale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario#Other buildings. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Royale[edit]

Chateau Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacked secondary sources since creation, by apparent COI editor, in December 2009. I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS to make this building notable. Fails WP:NGEO. However, all the essential information is contained at List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario#Other buildings. Redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator @Just Chilling: Since you're pretty experienced and would obviously just boldly redirect if this was routine, what's the unusual thing about this article that needs AfD attention? Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - a good question to which I don't have a good answer!! Last time I saw a similar tall building situation the redirect went through AfD but, I agree, I could, and perhaps should, have just boldly redirected. Perhaps speedy close as redirect? Just Chilling (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Given the lack of substantial editing history in the article, it seems uncontroversial. Bakazaka (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (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.