- 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The result was Withdrawn ( non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Keating Building ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been through prod but not through AFD. prod failed on account of this being a "historic" building, but there is no evidence provided of this, and I coudn't find anything substantiating notability. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be registered, etc. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - According to the San Diego government, it is registered on the Gaslamp Quarter Historic Buildings registry.
[1] Very in depth coverage, and coverage that calls this building "historic."
[2]
[3]
Oakshade (
talk)
23:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. In that case, I withdraw the nomination if the information is added to the article. Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, then. It has been acknowledged by nominator that topic is valid, and wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. It is okay to ask for someone to add stuff, but there is no leverage to make a demand, this is no longer an AFD in progress. This could be closed by anyone now, IMO. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- However,
Bueller 007, could you please just withdraw your nomination and close this. I did add stuff. This does not need more editors' attention. --
Doncram (
talk)
00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw by nom. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- However,
Bueller 007, could you please just withdraw your nomination and close this. I did add stuff. This does not need more editors' attention. --
Doncram (
talk)
00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Withdrawn ( non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Keating Building ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been through prod but not through AFD. prod failed on account of this being a "historic" building, but there is no evidence provided of this, and I coudn't find anything substantiating notability. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be registered, etc. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - According to the San Diego government, it is registered on the Gaslamp Quarter Historic Buildings registry.
[1] Very in depth coverage, and coverage that calls this building "historic."
[2]
[3]
Oakshade (
talk)
23:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. In that case, I withdraw the nomination if the information is added to the article. Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, then. It has been acknowledged by nominator that topic is valid, and wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. It is okay to ask for someone to add stuff, but there is no leverage to make a demand, this is no longer an AFD in progress. This could be closed by anyone now, IMO. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- However,
Bueller 007, could you please just withdraw your nomination and close this. I did add stuff. This does not need more editors' attention. --
Doncram (
talk)
00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw by nom. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- However,
Bueller 007, could you please just withdraw your nomination and close this. I did add stuff. This does not need more editors' attention. --
Doncram (
talk)
00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.