Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbour Square police station

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 no consensus. To be honest, the sourcing isn't convincing as it is, but, I also feel there is more out there and that an interesting article about architecture, history and policing could be built here.

However, if people want to propose merging, please do so on the appropriate talk pages.

Nothing convinced me that this article needs to be deleted, but, I'm not convinced this article doesn't need to be merged or kept as is right now. We need more significant coverage, but, WP:BASIC could help and I haven't seen that case presented yet.

I encourage others to expand this article and if all else fails, present a merge or re-present this to AfD and I will recuse myself in reviewing.

Thank you for respecting this good faith decision. This is my final decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbour Square police station

[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)

I do not see that an individual police station is likely to be notable; I see no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arbour Square. Some individual police stations are likely individually notable, the question is whether this one is. There are some sources available which mention it, but the only ones I've found that go into any depth are [1] and [2] which focus on it being used by squatters (which should probably be mentioned if this is kept). Either [3] or (less likely) [4] may have some more information but Google isn't showing me enough of the book to say for sure. Overall notability seems borderline, so with an obvious merge target it isn't going to overwhelm that seems the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metropolitan Police divisional headquarters are generally pretty notable. As can be seen from Streetview, this is a pretty substantial building. Easily enough sourcing available to meet GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Is "pretty substantial building" acritrion or notability ? DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arbour Square. Fits nicely there and has little substantial sourcing on its own. Sandstein 09:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more sources and merging to Arbour Square isn't as nice as I thought at first because the building is to the north of the square, not on it. Mujinga (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me all of ten minutes on Google to determine that this subject is notable. This should not have been nominated three times. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. A spot check of the references showed that two were area surveys and two were passing mention of the station in regarding to squatting. Blue Riband► 12:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is enough coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (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.