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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this building per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I do not believe that this meets notability standards. This "office building" doesn't seem to be important at all. The only way the article may assert its importance, is saying that "a highly intelligent use of an awkward site, and a way of looking at property development afresh" and "one of Britain's most imaginative new office complexes", however, I don't think that makes this building notable. Rjd0060 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the article is sourced to The Guardian, it's pretty rare for architecture to make its way into the mainstream press in the first place, so this in itself perhaps suggests a degree of notability. A very quick Google news archive search] suggests taht additional press coverage is also available (not all directed at the arhitecture I'll grant). I've brought the article and this afd to the attention of WP:Architecture as they are probably better placed to judge the importance of this building. David Underdown 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for additional sourcing. David Underdown 20:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as interesting isn't the same thing as notable. Maybe if it wins a UK architecture award, then it's not just innovative but recognized by peers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article in a major national newspaper establishes notability. There is no requirement to have it recognized by peers.--Bedivere 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What? I had an article in the Detroit Free Press, which is a very notable newspaper, however that article then became published in USA Today, so since those are both notable national (USA Today is more notable on a national level) newspapers, I should have an article about myself? - Rjd0060 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should. Who are you? --Oakshade 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not a notable person. I was just involved in a certain project, however the article was more about me and my involvement. - Rjd0060 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple more sources via http://www.newsuk.co.uk and added them to the article. This is a subscription service, but most UK library members will probably find that they have access to this or a similar service via their council library service. It seems to me that the building is becoming a notable arts venue if nothing else, there were 98 hits in total (including the three used as sources), most of which referred to it as a venue. You will probably find the first paras of the two new stories via the Google link I gave above. This would seem to make it pass the "multiple independent sources" required for notability (and which are not present in your case, since it was the same article re-printed by the sound of it). Would you like to re-consider this nomination now? I appreciate that Portobello Film Festival is a horrible substub at the moment, but it returns over 70,000 ghits, so I think that's probably notable too. David Underdown 20:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rjd0060, the reason I asked was because I was involved in an AfD debate where the nom made a similar comparison to himself ("I've been written about, but do I deserve an aritlce?") and I later learned that guy actually did have a Wikipedia article about him. Not only has he made no efforts to delete it, he's made edits/improvements on it. Not saying you're guilty of the same double standard, but it's curious when editors who qualify for Wikipedia article inclusion make the argument that they're not for the purpose of deleting articles. --Oakshade 20:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, that is really unfair. Most people I recall who have made that argument and who probably are qualified for inclusion are simply modest or have very high inclusion standards. There has been at least one case where the person was sufficiently notable that such an article was written and kept in spite of his/her initial objections. But this can only be done if they use their real name--it's not right to ask anybody to do that. (Incidentally, one article reprinted in another paper is not really 2 reliable sources)DGG (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Guardian article is very in depth and it's a very reliable source. --Oakshade 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:38, 20 October 2007 (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.