Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main headquarters of NATO

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. No one refuted the nominator's rationale or Iglooflame's !vote. The perceived problem with this article was that it is an exact 100% duplication of content that already exists in another Wikipedia article. No prejudice against re-creating this article if significantly more information becomes available about it which doesn't already exist in NATO#Structures. —SW— ^confess 22:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main headquarters of NATO[edit]

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

This is a completely useless article that just contains duplicate information from lede in the "Structures" section of the NATO article. I redirected this article to the NATO one, but the creator reverted it, saying "A building with over 40 years of history should have more than two paragraphs about it." I then searched the address on Google and Yahoo and have not found any evidence that this building has had anything significant happened to it in its 40 year history (if that is really how old it is. I have not been able to find proof of that either) other than it being the main headquarters of NATO for it to merit its own article. Note that even if we were to redirect this article to the NATO one again, it remains intact, so if anyone is able to find any reliable information about this building in the future, they just have to simply undo the redirect and add whatever they found with sources. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total duplicate of NATO#Structures. No point in breaking it out into a new article until new information is added and WP:Notability is determined. Iglooflame (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NPLACE landmarks often survive AfD. So, I am not so sure it should be deleted. Needs place coordinates and a picture of the place. I am quite sure this article can be improved. If there is a standalone article about The Pentagon, then why not about the NATO headquarters? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three references from different reliable sources, more can be found with gnews search.

Reply: There is no proof that this building is even considered a "landmark", which usually has a name to it (like The Pentagon, Empire State Building, or Eiffel Tower). A building named "Main headquarters of NATO" should be an indication that it is not notable. Also, those sources you added do not even confirm its significance (one of them just says that it was formerly a military compound, which does not necessarily meet notability requirements, and does not even give its name) and since NATO plans to relocate in the near future, it is possible the building will be abandoned and demolished or used for insignificant purposes. I have not been able to find an image of it. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All true, but it just so happens that the bar is put rather low for buildings or 'venues'. If we keep articles for tennis venues like Spartak Tennis Club, which survived AfD years ago, then how will we make the case to delete the article about the NATO headquarters? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Consensus from AfDs are not permanent as we are allowed to renominate articles for deletion or recreate one that have been deleted after a certain amount of time. It seems to me that Spartak Tennis Club, whose article looks really sloppy and needs major editing, is considered "notable" because numerous professional tennis players have worked or trained there. It is also not affiliated with any major group or organization and the AfD was only borderline keep, so I would not be surprised if it gets renominated in the future. This NATO headquarters, though, is very different. I still have not found sufficient evidence that this building meets Notablity for places or what was its history before it became NATO headquarters. A structure that is considered a landmark would never use its address or something like "Main headquarters of NATO" as its name. It would be named in a certain way so that people could find it easily on a map because landmarks are usually open to the public. I highly doubt NATO would let people visit their main headquarters publicly and the odds of this article being expanded are slim to none because NATO would never release anything about their headquarters. Basically, what I am saying is that the big difference between your tennis club example and this building is that the club is public while the NATO headquarters is private. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable WP:NPLACE. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Barry James, "NATO unveils blueprint for its new headquarters", "The New York Times", 2003-01-24 ([1]) does seem to dedicate three one-sentence paragraphs to this building (and yes, looks like it was built in 1967, in a hurry, doesn't look nice and wasn't designed to last that long)... I wonder if that is close to significant coverage..? Still, there might be something in sources that were published during the construction, or in some Belgian newspapers... Also looks like there is an image of the building (File:OTAN bruxelles.JPG), but its quality isn't high... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per WP:NPLACE, per User:MakeSense64. Expansion or rewriting is to be desired, but not required. Anarchangel (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2012 (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.