Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Atlantic Square

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 1 Atlantic Square. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 Atlantic Square

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested prod. Appears to be a WP:MILL office building with no individual notability. Sources have been provided since prod but only confirms that it will have corporate clients and a restaurant, which is no different to countless other such premises in every city IMO. Smaller counterpart to 1 Atlantic Square (which does have media coverage due to height and tenancy so appears to meet WP:GNG), see no reason this smaller building cannot simply be mentioned in that article as part of the project. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is many office building everywhere. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I base this on the Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture. GA does not require notability, but has their own criteria: Well-written, no OR, Broad, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated . I'm just saying that if GA might accept this by its own review, then I don't feel comfortable deleting this fairly new article based on "no individual notability". That's a bit of opposite POVs here, and I find this article interesting. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment you could a very detail good article about yourself but it will be removed because of lack of notability rules. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia requires notability. Crowsus (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Whether an article is well written has no bearing on whether it should be kept at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_(baseball)_(2nd_nomination) for example, which was a featured article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. The closer just said "merge". This does not mean anything regarding consensus. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Not really enough here for independent notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I saw this as a prod and didn't contest, it seems borderline G11 to me (not the most deletionist of editors), because the coverage is mainly primary and in the absence of indept secondary coverage, the depth of detail feels promotional. Would not object to a slender merge in the sense of retitling 1 Atlantic Square to include and namecheck no 2, but not including this depth of coverage based on primary sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a very interesting building indeed and I feel it'd be a shame to lose the article as a source of info about it. Failing that, Redirect; either way it has to stay. and that rhymed so you know its true_ : ) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 21:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Get the impression this is an advert with its lead including "flagship development" cited from a marketer of the office space and the citing of worlds (sic) most "prestigious" companies. Sources mainly PRIMARY or from connected parties and thus not independent. The GlasgowLive source is about both nos. 1 & 2 Atlantic Square, which lends support to the two being treated in one article. Doesn't seem independently notable on sourcing under GNG. The buildings are similar with their retained facade and construction; no need for a separate article for this one. Rupples (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2023 (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.