Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrows Court

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows Court

[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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply per what's already in the article, keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG as many sources were found (so many that I haven't quite finished with all the fixes). The building is covered extensively by Nottingham Evening Post over a period of decades, showing WP:SUSTAINED interest (and literally impossible and unnecessary to include every single piece). So I spent some time looking for coverage in other sources, and that exists as well, like this BBC News article focusing on lack of security and drug dealing at the property, and poor upkeep of the building by the council. Plus there are several others which have been added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for contributing to this and proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 29 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.